Defense?

[BawLa]

I am actually rather intrigued by the whole thing, although more than a bit worried. Basically we seem to have been "faking it", but having games where that's worked well. By making the game into a mess (for both sides) and getting on the defensive glass, we seem to be attempting to short ciruit our significant defensive issues by simply limiting the number of shots the other team gets off. Not actually sure if that is the plan or not, but its the way its working out. And on some nights its worked. So I'm intrigued. This is NOT how its normally done, and I suspect a healthy dose of smoke and mirrors here, but we'll see.

Interesting thoughts.

Can we sustain the energy over a full year?

I think so, barring injury of course. Muss got these guys in shape coming into the season and as long as he doesn't have to burn out our starters, I think it can be sustained.

Can Ron continue to carry us on the glass?

Yes. Not only is he a freak of a player now on another mission, but he is also getting oportunities to rebound because of our lacking qualities in the froncourt.

Or is this all just frenetic faking that is going to be exposed as the season drags on and people slump back into the long grind?

We have to believe that our guys have bought into the system. Hopefully we will eventually be able to lean on our D. Maybe not this year but in the future, near or far.

Can we sustain the energy to "fake it"?

No, because the guys that fake it will be called out by the team and fans.

Are other teams going to be able to adapt and adjust now that they've seen what we're doing?

They already have. But we need to continue to adapt and adjust ourselves.

Do we have yet another gear we can switch into?

I think so. We have seen hints that it is there but we haven't seen it for an extended period of time. Eventually this volcano will blow because we are active.

On the other hand though it is debatable that we might need a dominant big before we can truly switch into another gear.

Will Arco help?

Always.

Could Brad or Cisco (if he grows a brain) be an eventual x-factor, unlikely as that seems?

Maybe. I think Cisco has more upside than Brad from the standpoint that Brad has already had opportunities and has only proved that he can be an x-factor for a part of a game or one game. He is not an x-factor consistently.

I like what I see from Ronnie. I like how he is not afraid to go to the hoop. He leaves it all on the floor. Baby steps though. We could really use a B-Jax type player behind Bibby - draining 3's, getting to the line, and making opponent's PG's work. But baby steps.

What I think would be interesting is to see all of this scrambling around with a couple of big shotblockers back behind us to serve as goalies, but it appears that's not to be, Geoff keeps releasing statements about how he's happy as a clam with our bigs, and so we'll probably just have to make do.

He sure is a clam when it comes to our frontcourt. Even one shotblocker/rebounder would do.

 

[gunks]

Seriously. We need some interior D. The teams that are getting high fg% are scoring inside at will.

I kinda feel like Petrie is the one guy in the Kings organization who hasnt bought into the new defensive mindset...Kinda bad considering he's the GM.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Hate to join the ganging up on Petrie, but when I was at the GS game the other day I couldn't help but wonder: Could picking up a guy like Biedrins be that hard? I mean, yeah we missed out on Joelzilla, but even a guy like Biedrins could be a huge difference maker out there for us.

 

[nbrans]

Hate to join the ganging up on Petrie, but when I was at the GS game the other day I couldn't help but wonder: Could picking up a guy like Biedrins be that hard? I mean, yeah we missed out on Joelzilla, but even a guy like Biedrins could be a huge difference maker out there for us.

Biedrins was 11th pick in the draft. So yeah, it is hard.

Unless of course you want to blame Petrie for the fact that the Kings don't suck and therefore aren't getting high draft picks. In the same draft the Warriors got Biedrins at 11 the Kings got Kevin Martin at 26.

 

[SacTownKid]

The steals barely keep the Kings with a TO differential which is on the good side, but many other sorts of stats are simply bad. Reducing TOs would be great, but look at the other stuff, too...

Good stats: (at least in theory)
8th for points allowed (96.4)
11th in point differential (+1.4)
9th for FG attempts (80.8)
13th/14th for 3 pts attempted (17.9)
4th for FT made (23.8)
9th/10th for FT attempted (29.6)
5th for FT percentage (80.17%)
8th for FG attempts allowed (76.1)
3rd for FT attempts allowed (24.0)
6th for rebounds (43.1)
7th for rebound differential (+4.1)
13th in defensive rebounds allowed (30.0)
2nd for offensive rebounds (14.3)
4th in offensive rebounds allowed (9.0)
1st for offensive rebound differential (+5.3)
2nd for steals (10.5)
2nd for opponent's TOs (19.0)
11th for TO differential (+0.6)

Bad stats:
18th/19th for points (97.8)
23rd/24th for FG made (34.5)
28th for FG% (42.72)
21st for 3 pts made (5.0)
28th for points per shot (1.21)
22nd for opponent's FG percentage (46.8%)
28th for FG percentage differential (-4.07%)
29th for 3 pt percentage (28%)
15th for opponent's 3 pt percentage (36%)
29th for 3 pt percentage differential (-8%)
20th for points per shot allowed (1.27)
24th for points per shot differential (-0.06)
28th for adjusted FG% differential (-.05)
22nd for defensive rebounds (28.9)
23rd in defensive rebound differential (-1.1)
21st for assists (19.3)
20th for assists allowed (21.0)
21st for steals allowed (7.3)
17th for blocks allowed (4.9)
26th for block differential (-2.1)
29th for blocks (2.8)
27th/28th for TOs (18.4)
27th for assist/TO ratio (1.05)

Our opponents' offenses are lighting us up in almost every possible way -- shooting a lot better overall, shooting 3s a ton better, in everything but FG attempts and FTs, we're getting smoked. They are blocking far better than we are, and they are getting more steals off of us than they do off the average team. We are doing really well on offensive rebounds, probably because we're jacking up so many bad shots. In defensive rebounds, we're subpar, although that may be in part because our opponents have a lot better FG% than we do -- less missed shots, less defensive rebounds. One of the only bright sides on offense is that the Kings end up going to the charity stripe relatively often, and still have a very high FT% (THANK YOU KM, for almost 1/3 of our FTs, hitting 93%+) -- presumably this is from those occasions when guys decide NOT to go for jumpers, but to get fouled on the way to the basket.

So while the dumb TOs are especially painful, because they seem like they should be avoidable, TO differential is still a slight + for us. I find the very negative differentials in shooting even more disturbing, and am not happy with the appearance that our much-vaunted improvement in rebounding may be mainly due to our decline in FG%.

Four or five extra steals a game is great, but it doesn't mean good defense. And nothing to be seen above means good offense.

19 turnovers a game is too high. WAY too high for a team trying to be a winner. No matter how many you cause the other team. Like I said, I have actually gone back and watched some of the games, and the Kings have to work way harder for their steals than the other team. If this team gets the T.O's under control it will show in the W/L column.

You also have to understand a lot of the reason teams shoot a higher percentage than we do is because they get out and run off of our T.O's leading to easy lay ups and dunks.

 

[SacTownKid]

i think our defense is very dependent on our energy level. if you see the kings defense it is kinda like a swarming, play the passing lanes, hustle on the boards type of defense.

In the two games we really got lit up, (vs MIL, vs GSW) we were on the tail end of a back to back where our starters played a lot of minutes the previous night.

In the MIL game, we were there in the first half then got blown out in the 3rd and mainly 4th quarter. In the GSW game, we got blown out in the 1st quarter.

obviously, 8 games is hardly representative of what will be an 82 game season. but it will be interesting to find out how we would have ranked in those defensive categories without the MIL and GSW games.

I know that BTB are part of the schedule/NBA game but this shows how much minutes are starters are playing this early in the season.

Very interesting points and I think you're hitting the nail on the head. But that is something the team is going to have to get used to. The great teams find a way to keep that energy going night in and night out. Of couse it helps when you know the guys your playing with so well that you know where they are, or will be, at all times. Hopefully that comes sooner than later for this current group of guys.

 

[thatguy]

Thanks for the stats lesson but technically it takes approximately 30 events (games) to hit a normal distribution, which then can be used to best judge a population (season). So if the season ended in January, I'd say you're right...

If you just wanted to go against the grain and demonstrate that it's too early to be calling this an elite defensive team, that's fair. But it would have been just as fair last week when we had the best OFG% and points allowed in the league.

It is interesting the two salient points have been ignored.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

It is interesting the two salient points have been ignored.

It is equally interesting that the two points which agree with your point of view are the only ones which you consider salient.

 

[fnordius]

Biedrins was 11th pick in the draft. So yeah, it is hard.

Unless of course you want to blame Petrie for the fact that the Kings don't suck and therefore aren't getting high draft picks. In the same draft the Warriors got Biedrins at 11 the Kings got Kevin Martin at 26.

Well, on the other hand, during the Petrie era, we have passed on many good bigs in the draft. GP just seems to have no interest. Jabari Smith, at the very end of a second round, that was it -- he passed on Jermaine O'Neal, ZI, Nowitzki, Keon Clark, Dalembert, Okur, and so many others that I have to think he's allergic to bigs.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Well, on the other hand, during the Petrie era, we have passed on many good bigs in the draft. GP just seems to have no interest. Jabari Smith, at the very end of a second round, that was it -- he passed on Jermaine O'Neal, ZI, Nowitzki, Keon Clark, Dalembert, Okur, and so many others that I have to think he's allergic to bigs.

I've been on the "anti-Petrie" bandwagon ever since February 22, 2005, but let's try to look at this objectively:

- He "passed" on O'Neal and Ilgauskas for Stojakovic. I'd have rather had O'Neal, but seeing as how we were on the cusp of a championship with Stojakovic as an integral part, I'm not prepared to call that a bad decision.

- I wouldn't say that "passing" on Keon Clark to get Jason Williams was a bad move, and passing on Nowitzki to get him only looks bad in hindsight; Williams was much more NBA ready in 1998 than Nowitzki was. Personally, if I were doing that draft over, and still had the #7 pick, I still would have passed on Nowtizki to take Pierce.

- Petrie did pass on Dalembert and Okur to draft Wallace, but he also passed on Arenas, who is better than all three of them, so where's the outcry over that? I'm much more upset over the fact that Petrie didn't prepare adequately for the expansion draft than I am with him passing on Dalembert. I'll admit that I'm a little surprised that Petrie didn't draft Okur, though, seeing as how he would have fit into our system at the time.

But Petrie seems to be "allergic" to more than just big men; he seems hesitant to take a chance on anyone other than 6'7 swingmen on draft night.

 

[Londonking]

- Petrie did pass on Dalembert and Okur to draft Wallace, but he also passed on Arenas, who is better than all three of them, so where's the outcry over that?

OMG...dont tell me that !!

That event happened before i began following the Kings, i dont want to accept that reality...not...listening ::covered ears:: ..la,la,la....

 

[gunks]

Well, just about everybody passed on Arenas....He was a second round pick.

I'm hoping Petrie can get over his fetish for shooters and swingmen. He needs to bring us a defensive minded big. And I know thats a lot easier said then done....But if Petrie is this genius everyone says he is then he should have no trouble finding a trade (am I right?).

The question is does he even want to. And it seems like he doesnt.

 

[nbrans]

Well, just about everybody passed on Arenas....He was a second round pick.

I'm hoping Petrie can get over his fetish for shooters and swingmen. He needs to bring us a defensive minded big. And I know thats a lot easier said then done....But if Petrie is this genius everyone says he is then he should have no trouble finding a trade (am I right?).

The question is does he even want to. And it seems like he doesnt.

As I've said in another thread, the second half of last season following the Skinner trade and the beginning of this season is the first time the Kings have not had a shotblocker on the roster in the Petrie era. There was Michael Stewart, then young-Webber, then Pollard, then Keon Clark, then Ostertag, then Skinner. So the idea that Petrie has an aversion to shotblockers just doesn't make sense to me.

The problem is that good defensive bigs are at a serious premium in the league right now. The number of competent defensive bigs is very small, and the number of impact defensive bigs is even smaller. You're looking at a list that includes Kevin Garnett, Ben Wallace, Tyson Chandler, Duncan, Howard, Okafor, Brand... teams aren't exactly looking to just give those guys away.

Everyone can see that interior defense is the biggest problem facing the Kings right now (at least, I hope everyone can see it), but unfortunately it's not as easy as just snapping your fingers to solve the problem.

 

[6th]

As I've said in another thread, the second half of last season following the Skinner trade and the beginning of this season is the first time the Kings have not had a shotblocker on the roster in the Petrie era. There was Michael Stewart, then young-Webber, then Pollard, then Keon Clark, then Ostertag, then Skinner. So the idea that Petrie has an aversion to shotblockers just doesn't make sense to me.

The problem is that good defensive bigs are at a serious premium in the league right now. The number of competent defensive bigs is very small, and the number of impact defensive bigs is even smaller. You're looking at a list that includes Kevin Garnett, Ben Wallace, Tyson Chandler, Duncan, Howard, Okafor, Brand... teams aren't exactly looking to just give those guys away.

Everyone can see that interior defense is the biggest problem facing the Kings right now (at least, I hope everyone can see it), but unfortunately it's not as easy as just snapping your fingers to solve the problem.

<6th snaps her fingers>

Yep! It isn't so easy. Good post, nbrans.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

As I've said in another thread, the second half of last season following the Skinner trade and the beginning of this season is the first time the Kings have not had a shotblocker on the roster in the Petrie era. There was Michael Stewart, then young-Webber, then Pollard, then Keon Clark, then Ostertag, then Skinner. So the idea that Petrie has an aversion to shotblockers just doesn't make sense to me.

So why doesn't he draft them, then?

 

[BawLa]

So why doesn't he draft them, then?

I think he has a hard time "investing" in the bigger, dumber guys. I think he wants to be able to communicate with his players before he signs them and has a hard time talking to some of the big guys. Shareef -- Went to Cal, Berkely. Brad -- White/educated. Pot -- expiring contract. CWebb -- had that charm. Vlade -- was Vlade.

So back to the idea of drafting a young big -- the smart bigs go quick and we haven't had the draft pick to get one. So instead of taking a dumb big guy he has chosen to take the next best talent available.

I'm sure he would take a guy like Tim Duncan if he were available. The problem is that what has been available recently is the dumber, less educated version of the shotblocking big. So it is of my opinion that he is waiting for a smart big guy. Unfortunately for us that may never happen in his tenure.

 

[nbrans]

So why doesn't he draft them, then?

I don't think we can argue with the Kevin Martin selection, but I've said elsewhere that I think Francisco Garcia over David Lee was a mistake. Of course, David Lee mostly just a rebounder and not really a shotblocker, so it doesn't really disprove the overall point that good interior defenders are tough to come by, especially when you're drafting in the 20's. You could go all the way back to Dalembert/Wallace, but it's doubtful Dalembert would have gotten any more minutes than Wallace di back then.

 

[gunks]

The problem is that good defensive bigs are at a serious premium in the league right now. The number of competent defensive bigs is very small, and the number of impact defensive bigs is even smaller. You're looking at a list that includes Kevin Garnett, Ben Wallace, Tyson Chandler, Duncan, Howard, Okafor, Brand... teams aren't exactly looking to just give those guys away.

Everyone can see that interior defense is the biggest problem facing the Kings right now (at least, I hope everyone can see it), but unfortunately it's not as easy as just snapping your fingers to solve the problem.

True, its not as easy as snapping your fingers. But we can all agree that Petrie is a very intelligent GM. So why is it that the Kings, season after season, seem to always rank near the bottem of the NBA in blocked shots per game. If he's as good as people say he is then why do the Kings never have that interior presence? Shotblockers arnt THAT difficult to come by. Theres plenty of second string 4's and 5's in the league that can block more shots a game then Miller. And I think if Petrie wanted one, he could get one in a Kings uniform.

It seems like Petrie goes after the shooters/swingmen far more agressively then he courts bigs....He outbid two teams to get John Salmons, but didnt seem to try very hard to get those free agent bigs that were available this last offseason. I dunno, maybe he did go after them and it just didnt work out.

And we dont need KG, Duncan, Okafor, etc. Making that list to prove your point that its not Petrie's fault we dont have a shotblocker is like telling people who want more scoring its impossible and listing names like Kobe, LBJ, Arenas, etc.

We only need a player who can intimidate in the paint just enough so that all these quick PGs who have career nights running layup drills on the Kings have to shoot a few more jumpshots.

 

[nbrans]

True, its not as easy as snapping your fingers. But we can all agree that Petrie is a very intelligent GM. So why is it that the Kings, season after season, seem to always rank near the bottem of the NBA in blocked shots per game. If he's as good as people say he is then why do the Kings never have that interior presence? Shotblockers arnt THAT difficult to come by. Theres plenty of second string 4's and 5's in the league that can block more shots a game then Miller. And I think if Petrie wanted one, he could get one in a Kings uniform.

It seems like Petrie goes after the shooters/swingmen far more agressively then he courts bigs....He outbid two teams to get John Salmons, but didnt seem to try very hard to get those free agent bigs that were available this last offseason. I dunno, maybe he did go after them and it just didnt work out.

And we dont need KG, Duncan, Okafor, etc. Making that list to prove your point that its not Petrie's fault we dont have a shotblocker is like telling people who want more scoring its impossible and listing names like Kobe, LBJ, Arenas, etc.

We only need a player who can intimidate in the paint just enough so that all these quick PGs who have career nights running layup drills on the Kings have to shoot a few more jumpshots.

I understand what you're saying -- this is essentially the "priority" theory. If shotblocking were a priority, the theory goes, there would be shotblockers on the roster because Geoff would value shotblocking more than the players we end up getting. This one is tough to prove or disprove without knowing the types of deals Geoff has been offered. We don't know for sure if he has or hasn't gone after good shotblockers (I thought I read somewhere that Petrie offered the MLE to Przybilla) so it's mostly conjecture.

Ultimately I don't know if I agree with that theory just based on the types of players the Kings have historically had on the roster. The shotblocking has been low overall because the players who get the most minutes (Webber/Divac, Divac/Miller, Webber/Miller, SAR/Miller, KT/Miller) haven't been shotblockers, but there were shotblockers on the bench. And I don't agree that you can just get any old shotblocker. Skinner's a good shotblocker, but he was mediocre at everything else, I don't think the team would have been better if he started instead of SAR or KT or Miller. You need a shotblocker who benefits the team enough by his presence and by doing other things to justify his presence on the floor or is able to help out in other ways or is also a good man defender.

I will say that the Salmons signing doesn't exactly prove the "Petrie loves shooters" theory. If anything Petrie seems to value guys who can help out in more than one area. It seems to me that he values "versatility" on the court more than specialists. So I think this is the real reason the Kings don't often have shotblockers. The types of guys who do more than just shotblock are the types of stars I named in that list. The guys who are good at just shotblocking but are not otherwise skilled defensively or on offense (Dalembert for instance) are not guys Petrie has traditionally been interested in.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I will say that the Salmons signing doesn't exactly prove the "Petrie loves shooters" theory. If anything Petrie seems to value guys who can help out in more than one area. It seems to me that he values "versatility" on the court more than specialists. So I think this is the real reason the Kings don't often have shotblockers. The types of guys who do more than just shotblock are the types of stars I named in that list. The guys who are good at just shotblocking but are not otherwise skilled defensively or on offense (Dalembert for instance) are not guys Petrie has traditionally been interested in.

I don't agree with this at all: if anything, I think that Chicago, Houston, San Antonio and Miami have proven that if you have one or two transcendent players, you don't need to surround them with them with "do everything" roleplayers. You only really need "versatile" role players when your star player(s) are limited.

In our case, our star players (Bibby, Artest and, eventually, Martin) are limited players, so they need versatile roleplayers to compliment them. But, the problem is that the our roleplayers don't compliement them so much as they duplicate them to a lesser extent.

 

[gunks]

Me mentioning Salmons was making the point that Petrie likes swingmen not that Petrie likes shooters. I guess I should have written that "shooters and swingmen" instead of "shooters/swingmen".

You do make several good points though. And my opinion on the matter is pretty biased considering I get more excited over a blocked shot then a made 3 pointer.

I just think its probably as difficult to get these offensively gifted 4's and 5's (Miller, Webber, Vlade) then to get one whos great on defense.

We could argue this forever, but I'd much rather just agree to disagree ...Everyone has their own opinion on Petrie.

 

[fnordius]

And we dont need KG, Duncan, Okafor, etc. Making that list to prove your point that its not Petrie's fault we dont have a shotblocker is like telling people who want more scoring its impossible and listing names like Kobe, LBJ, Arenas, etc.

I'd be happy to have an Andris Biedrins, Kendrick Perkins, Etan Thomas or Steven Hunter at this point, and Petrie has passed on many a guy like that. In fact, Perkins was drafted with a pick that Petrie traded away (in order to get Nick Anderson in return for Abdul-Wahad), so obviously it can be done with the sort of picks we get.

 

[SacKings384]

Diamonds in the rough aren't as easy to find in the lower parts of the round as wing players are.

 

[Bricklayer]

Diamonds in the rough aren't as easy to find in the lower parts of the round as wing players are.

You don't need to draft them.

 

[KP]

But, the problem is that the our roleplayers don't compliement them so much as they duplicate them to a lesser extent.

I think this is key...

 

[nbrans]

I don't agree with this at all: if anything, I think that Chicago, Houston, San Antonio and Miami have proven that if you have one or two transcendent players, you don't need to surround them with them with "do everything" roleplayers. You only really need "versatile" role players when your star player(s) are limited.

In our case, our star players (Bibby, Artest and, eventually, Martin) are limited players, so they need versatile roleplayers to compliment them. But, the problem is that the our roleplayers don't compliement them so much as they duplicate them to a lesser extent.

Wait, how do you not agree with the part you quoted when we agree on everything?

I think we're both in agreement that since the Kings don't have superstars the idea is to surround the players with do everything guys rather than more limited roleplayers. And I also agree that right now the mix of roleplayers isn't correct yet -- still looking for that versatile interior guy.