[Game] 60/82: Kings @ Mavericks, 03 MAR 2025, 5:30p PT/8:30p ET

[The_Jamal]

That was a masterclass in defense last night. Crazy that he wound up with zero steals or blocks.

Props to Lyles as well. He's still inconsistent but his good games have been really good games lately.

Yeah, when Lyles is dialed, he's as good a role playing talent as you could hope for. I absolutely loved that

Fultz
LaVine
LaRavia
Keegan
Lyles

lineup we ran for a bit. Just absolutely dominated.

4 minutes
110 ORtg
54.5 DRTg

Got to take another look at that 5-man, especially while Domas is out and we need the Lyles small-ball 5.

 

[Elektrik]

I told ya'all...he's better than Sabonis in terms of making the team defense better overall.

I wouldn't mind seeing a regular season reduction, making the regular season more valuable to play in. Followed by eliminating the play-in and keeping the best 8 teams in each conference.

I hate the play-in format.

 

[TheMobb]

Yeah, when Lyles is dialed, he's as good a role playing talent as you could hope for. I absolutely loved that

Fultz
LaVine
LaRavia
Keegan
Lyles

lineup we ran for a bit. Just absolutely dominated.

4 minutes
110 ORtg
54.5 DRTg

Got to take another look at that 5-man, especially while Domas is out and we need the Lyles small-ball 5.

Love his role as a 4th or 5th big instead of having to rely on him as the 3rd big every night.

 

[iowamcnabb]

Yeah, Keegan's right back to shooting as we expect. Over his last 25 games, he's at 39.4% from 3 on 6 3PA/game. Has a monthly TS% of:

Jan: 58.6% TS
Feb: 61.4% TS
March: 69.4% TS (2 games)

He's playing the "good" version of HB on offense being mega efficient on low USG but with excellent defense.

fix Novembers and he is most likely in that 37-41 percent from 3 most seasons.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Not sure if anyone said something about this earlier in this thread, but did anyone else notice Money Malik staring at his left hand after finishing a shot with it as he got back down the floor on defense? The announcing crew never noticed or mentioned it, but my wife and I enjoyed it.

MM‘s flamboyant, quirky personality has made him a fan favorite in our household. I liked the kid back at Kentucky but never truly recognized back then that he was like this.

 

[The_Jamal]

I hate the play-in format.

Yeah, its lame. Thought i might like it, but I'd much rather see the division winners get in and then just the best records after that. But then even then playoff seeding is based off record

 

[Vinny Basketballerino]

Great win. They should really be beating these teams by 20+ points and they are. Keegan looked like the Keegan of old last night. He's been more aggressive since the Fox trade for sure.

Sucks that Kyrie tore his ACL. He's one of my favorite non Kings players.

We seriously got the better end of this trade, all things considered. I think we were all a little blinded by how "Fox-centric" our offense had become. This move has been great for on court chemistry.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Yeah, its lame. Thought i might like it, but I'd much rather see the division winners get in and then just the best records after that. But then even then playoff seeding is based off record

I know I'm beating my own personal dead horse but teams under-.500 do not belong in the post season, and they especially don't when teams above .500 are being left out.

I'm all for a play in if its because a winning team is being left out but none of this 32-35 win teams like the Bulls and Hawks are likely to be. Even the Magic and Heat 7/8 seeds out East are looking to be on 36-38 win pace.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

We seriously got the better end of this trade, all things considered. I think we were all a little blinded by how "Fox-centric" our offense had become. This move has been great for on court chemistry.

It's hard not to fall in love with good Fox. Fox in 22-23, Fox that puts up 60 and follows it up with 49, Mr. Clutch Fox. Angry Fox.

You look at that and think he can be that every night because it happens enough to tantalize. Kings fans usually don't get that.

We also haven't seen anything like what Zach has done the last four games since like Peja while Webber was out or maybe Rock in 94-96. I just hope we get a nice long look at it and this isn't the usual well he's great for a King type experience.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Yeah, its lame. Thought i might like it, but I'd much rather see the division winners get in and then just the best records after that. But then even then playoff seeding is based off record

I actually hated it more when it was first implemented, but dislike it less now. It gives a few more teams and their fanbases hope and reason not to jump right to "tank" mode.

It's fantastic for the Western Conference this season, as there are 10 teams over .500. Last season there were 11 teams at .500 or better.

It creates better competition throughout the entire season.

The East has been weaker with only 6 teams at or above .500 so the format looks worse in that regard, but they still got teams 10-12 fighting for that last spot which I believe is a good thing.

That said, I am opposed to "wildcards" and such for all sports. I am more of a traditionalist when it comes to postseason qualification. I mean, what's the point of playing 82 games in basketball and 162 in baseball (which are large sample sizes) if it doesn't mean everything? They spend the entire season creating separation between teams only to reset it all at the very end, which allows lesser teams to sometimes get hot and win when they otherwise wouldn't have been in position to.

But if they are intent on fielding an expanded field and creating more widespread interest, then what the NBA is doing with the play-in works IMO. I'd be ok with some tweaks to it, of course. But the general concept is ok. It is doing what it was intended to do. More teams are playing to win deeper into the season and more teams and their fans have hope for a longer period of time.

But if they decided to go your route, I'd be ok with it too. I'd be more ok with allowing the top 16 regardless of division or conference. I want the best teams qualifying, if we're decreasing the pool.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I actually hated it more when it was first implemented, but dislike it less now. It gives a few more teams and their fanbases hope and reason not to jump right to "tank" mode.

It's fantastic for the Western Conference this season, as there are 10 teams over .500. Last season there were 11 teams at .500 or better.

It creates better competition throughout the entire season.

The East has been weaker with only 6 teams at or above .500 so the format looks worse in that regard, but they still got teams 10-12 fighting for that last spot which I believe is a good thing.

That said, I am opposed to "wildcards" and such for all sports. I am more of a traditionalist when it comes to postseason qualification. I mean, what's the point of playing 82 games in basketball and 162 in baseball (which are large sample sizes) if it doesn't mean everything? They spend the entire season creating separation between teams only to reset it all at the very end, which allows lesser teams to sometimes get hot and win when they otherwise wouldn't have been in position to.

But if they are intent on fielding an expanded field and creating more widespread interest, then what the NBA is doing with the play-in works IMO. I'd be ok with some tweaks to it, of course. But the general concept is ok. It is doing what it was intended to do. More teams are playing to win deeper into the season and more teams and their fans have hope for a longer period of time.

But if they decided to go your route, I'd be ok with it too. I'd be more ok with allowing the top 16 regardless of division or conference. I want the best teams qualifying, if we're decreasing the pool.

If you think about it I believe the main reason they have it is so they can keep East/West conferences and not have to deal with the huge discrepancy of teams below .500 in playoff "contention" in the East (which I'm sure at one point if you go back to 1994 and 1995 when the Kings were playoff contenders for the 8 seed while below .500 the conference shoes were on the other feet). But for at least the last 26 years it has been a crowded west.

Maybe when they sort the lottery they should go by how many games back the team was from a playoff spot and not just record. Or do something that equalizes the odds a bit for the teams that are trying but have 10 really good teams in front of them.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I know I'm beating my own personal dead horse but teams under-.500 do not belong in the post season, and they especially don't when teams above .500 are being left out.

I couldn't agree more.

In baseball, I hate the wildcard additions. I liked it better when only the division winners got in. They play 162 which really separates the good from the mediocre and the bad. But then they now allow the mediocre and sometimes bad in and those teams often upset superior teams due to short series and disruption of every day rhythm with so much time off in between.

Same happened in NASCAR when they went to the playoff format. Instead of one driver running away with it 2/3rd though the season they reset the field. To me, that's like saying "well, this football game is 35-7 after Q3 and we're going to lose our audience so we'll reset and start Q4 off with a score of 21-10 to keep people interest throughout". The when the team down 21-10 pulls off a couple of big plays to come back to win 24-21, they celebrate like they actually were the better team.

I HATE that!

WRT the NBA, they play half of the games that MLB does and that often involves back-to-backs which makes the regular season a bit less reliable and more enigmatic. So I'm ok with a larger field of postseason participants. And to your point, I don't think anyone under .500 should get in. Even 41-41 is suspect.

And to your last point, I've always had a problem with teams getting squeezed out because they happen to be in a super competitive division or conference. That just shouldn't happen.

I recognize that travel has always played a huge factor, but in this day and age -- it shouldn't anymore. Keep the conference alignment format for the regular season to keep travel at a minimum, but when it comes to postseason -- take the top 16 regardless of division or conference. Sure, there can be problems with that, too, as some teams might have inflated records playing in a weaker conference ... but no format will ever be perfect.

If you end up with some series being regional and some being cross country -- so be it.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Expand to 32, change to 4 divisions, give each division winner a top seed, seed the rest of the way by record. Done.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I couldn't agree more.

In baseball, I hate the wildcard additions. I liked it better when only the division winners got in. They play 162 which really separates the good from the mediocre and the bad. But then they now allow the mediocre and sometimes bad in and those teams often upset superior teams due to short series and disruption of every day rhythm with so much time off in between.

Same happened in NASCAR when they went to the playoff format. Instead of one driver running away with it 2/3rd though the season they reset the field. To me, that's like saying "well, this football game is 35-7 after Q3 and we're going to lose our audience so we'll reset and start Q4 off with a score of 21-10 to keep people interest throughout". The when the team down 21-10 pulls off a couple of big plays to come back to win 24-21, they celebrate like they actually were the better team.

I HATE that!

WRT the NBA, they play half of the games that MLB does and that often involves back-to-backs which makes the regular season a bit less reliable and more enigmatic. So I'm ok with a larger field of postseason participants. And to your point, I don't think anyone under .500 should get in. Even 41-41 is suspect.

And to your last point, I've always had a problem with teams getting squeezed out because they happen to be in a super competitive division or conference. That just shouldn't happen.

I recognize that travel has always played a huge factor, but in this day and age -- it shouldn't anymore. Keep the conference alignment format for the regular season to keep travel at a minimum, but when it comes to postseason -- take the top 16 regardless of division or conference. Sure, there can be problems with that, too, as some teams might have inflated records playing in a weaker conference ... but no format will ever be perfect.

If you end up with some series being regional and some being cross country -- so be it.

I think if they reset to 4 divisions in 2 conferences they can make a more balance schedule that justifies seeds 1-4 as the top division winners and then the remaining 12. I'd be fine playing in for a few spots if 1-2 games separated the teams and they were in different divisions to accommodate scheduling variance.

But I think they should figure out a way to ease the burden on teams like Sacramento and Portland. No I won't stop harping on how stupid the ATL-TOR-MIA in 4 days leg of a road trip was. You have to put the ATL and MIA legs together, and preferably that's your b2b.

But the schedule makers should also just work to get rid of road back to backs.

As absurd as the algorithms must be, get one designed for the sole purpose of minimizing "scheduled losses". Make all travel follow the path a family would on a vacation. Silly things to get rid of illogical schedules like the ATL-TOR-MIA thing from ever happening.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Expand to 32, change to 4 divisions, give each division winner a top seed, seed the rest of the way by record. Done.

Not as friendly for TV and I am sure arena deals will have to be negotiated for teams that share but I think NBA should have designated zero-game days during the week. And more days where every team plays (which should guarantee that the league and its tv partners can get a marquee game on any given night).

 

[Tetsujin]

Simple solution is to add Seattle and Vegas and move Memphis and New Orleans to the eastern conference.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Simple solution is to add Seattle and Vegas and move Memphis and New Orleans to the eastern conference.

Sounds that way ... but...
If there are 15 teams in each conference and you add two to the west you get 17 and 15.

So only one of Memphis or New Orleans would move to get you to 16 in each conference.

I think North West/South West and North East and South East divisions is the way and a total re-org. But I haven't mapped out the teams and almost surely the Kings and Portland and new Seattle teams wind up with putrid travel schedules.

Maybe it's possible to do them strictly East-West.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I think North West/South West and North East and South East divisions is the way and a total re-org. But I haven't mapped out the teams and almost surely the Kings and Portland and new Seattle teams wind up with putrid travel schedules.

We will always have a bad travel schedule, because look:

There's no getting around it. It's the price we pay for having nice weather.

 

[NewArena]

Idc who you’re playing - just 7 turnovers tells me a lot about the chemistry right now. Fultz had 3 of em btw

 

[Tetsujin]

Sounds that way ... but...
If there are 15 teams in each conference and you add two to the west you get 17 and 15.

So only one of Memphis or New Orleans would move to get you to 16 in each conference.

I think North West/South West and North East and South East divisions is the way and a total re-org. But I haven't mapped out the teams and almost surely the Kings and Portland and new Seattle teams wind up with putrid travel schedules.

Maybe it's possible to do them strictly East-West.

Sure but grouping wise, doesn’t it make more sense if the Bucks were in the west since they’re only like an hour and a half away from Minnesota as opposed to Memphis and New Orleans who are closer to Florida than they are the Great Lakes?

 

[pdxKingsFan]

We will always have a bad travel schedule, because look:

There's no getting around it. It's the price we pay for having nice weather.

Things can still be done to mitigate it depending on how willing they are to do it. It might mean that Nor Cal and So Cal wind up in different divisions, and other established rivalries are split up. NHL had to do it. It was painful for a league that once had divisions and conferences named after people and settled up one team per division back in the day to break traditions but ultimately they circled back to something that is relatively fair and works for all (as a bonus 8 seeds upset the number one seed with alarming regularity in best of 7 series in hockey).

I've offered suggestions beyond tweaking the divisions based on the amount of teams play each other and travel guidelines to reduce scheduled losses, although perhaps the best one also involves removing a few games from the schedule so it may be undesirable.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Sure but grouping wise, doesn’t it make more sense if the Bucks were in the west since they’re only like an hour and a half away from Minnesota as opposed to Memphis and New Orleans who are closer to Florida than they are the Great Lakes?

Oh we need a full realignment for sure, just that oh we add Vegas and Seattle so now the two most problematic "west" teams are in the East isn't as simple as it sounds.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Not perfect and the midwest/east gets a little dicey but how about something like this?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Not perfect and the midwest/east gets a little dicey but how about something like this?
View attachment 13379

Probably about as good as you can hope for. The two western groupings are spot on. The eastern groupings are a bit tougher. I would try pretty hard to get the 7 "Great Lakes" teams (Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto, plus Minny and Indy) together, which basically would mean Atlanta (alternately Charlotte, but probably not) would go with them and then the 5 Megalopolis teams would hook up with Charlotte, Orlando, and Miami. So effectively, you've got Atlantic, Great Lakes, Manifest Destiny, and Pacific divisions and Atlanta is the only real sore thumb.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Probably about as good as you can hope for. The two western groupings are spot on. The eastern groupings are a bit tougher. I would try pretty hard to get the 7 "Great Lakes" teams (Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto, plus Minny and Indy) together, which basically would mean Atlanta (alternately Charlotte, but probably not) would go with them and then the 5 Megalopolis teams would hook up with Charlotte, Orlando, and Miami. So effectively, you've got Atlantic, Great Lakes, Manifest Destiny, and Pacific divisions and Atlanta is the only real sore thumb.

Yeah the other option I had was Charlotte, Orlando and Miami to the Atlantic and wrap Toronto, Milwaukee and Minny into that group with Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Indy but that leaves ATL on an island. While my map broke up some traditional geographic rivals it prioritized trying to at least keep a decent hub of 3-4 teams. Minny is probably the most "disadvantaged" on my original map but they are still probably better off than their current division. In terms of raw geography travelled they look about equal.

 

[serbiangoat]

It's such a shame our arguably two most impactful players in Val and Domas can't play together most nights

 

[bball_nomad]

It's such a shame our arguably two most impactful players in Val and Domas can't play together most nights

It's just a glitch. The same glitch happened when Zach in his first games with the Kings couldn't nail his long shots and was passing ball to who knows whom. JV played in 90+ of his games in NBA, started in 90+ games in NBA. JV has 377 double-doubles. Domas is catching up. I wouldn't be surprised if DC will cook up some line-ups when Domas and JV can be on the floor together for some short stints. JV is just too good to be only a backup.