OKC and Some Perspective

[Kingster]

Let's take the Thunder to get a little pespective. They are the poster child, after all, for a stupendous success of building with youth. In other words, I'm taking the absolute extreme of success in a youthful program for this analysis, even though we know they are tons of other programs with young rosters that haven't done nearly as well over such short a time frame. In other words, to all those anti-Westphal-this-team-should play-a-lot-better crowd, I'm giving you major points by using this example.

So let's go back to 2008-2009 season. Without detailing everybody on the roster, here are some of main cogs:

Durant - 1 year of experience
Green - 1 year of experience
Westbrook - rookie

Not a bad, trio, wouldn't you say? Do the Kings have a comparable trio?

Tyreke - 1 year of experience
Cousins - rookie

But who is the Kings' Green? I leave it to you to pick from our cast of characters who is as talented as Green. My choice: Nobody on our team is as talented once you get past Tyreke and Cousins. But you might choose Landry, so we'll go with that.

Now let's continue to look at the OKC roster in 2008:

Sefolosha - 4 yrs of experience. I'm trying to think of anybody on our roster who comes close to being a defensive stopper as Sefolosha. Any ideas? If you want, you can put Dalembert in that genre.

Ibaka - rookie. Extremely athletic shot blocker. Do you think Casspi or Greene is comparable to Ibaka? Personally, I think Ibaka is more talented than either one of them, but hey, I'll grant you that maybe Casspi or Greene might be comparable.

Now we go to some of the middle of the road vets on OKC:

Earl Watson - 7 yrs (Beno for Watson? Again, I like Watson over Beno, but I'll "give" you Beno as comparable to Watson

Nick Collison - 4 yrs
Joe Smith - 13 years. (Garcia fits in here somewhere)

So I'm chosing the team with the most talented youthful players I can find and the one that has actually showed last year they could win 50+ games with virtually the same roster. And each step of the way, I've bent over backwards to give you the point that the Kings are as talented now as OKC was back then (Even though I don't believe it for a minute).

So, how many games did this quite talented Thunder team win in the 2008-09 season? TWENTY-THREE.

And for the heck of it, how many games do you think they won from the beginning of the 2008 season through the end of December 2008? FOUR.

I can hear it now: Oh, but they played better from Oct - Dec of 2008 than the Kings are playing now. Sure they did. I'm sure they looked just great as they were pursuing their four wins over two months. Must have looked a finely tuned machine....?
No doubt their fans were cooing over how great their coach was during that time period also.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

But who is the Kings' Green?

Maybe they'll get their Green in next year's draft. if they get enough top 5 picks, they'll have to get good eventually! Or so you'd think.

 

[Asaf]

I think you (conveniently?) forgot to mention one very important factor in the transformation of OKC going from 3-29 in the first part of that season to 20-30 in the later part. Did their players instantly gain 5 years of experience in a month? Probably not. Maybe it was something else. Let's think...

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I think you (conveniently?) forgot to mention one very important factor in the transformation of OKC going from 3-29 in the first part of that season to 20-30 in the later part. Did their players instantly gain 5 years of experience in a month? Probably not. Maybe it was something else. Let's think...

Uhhhhh...was it something to do with a coaching change???

 

[Asaf]

Uhhhhh...was it something to do with a coaching change???

and you advance to the bonus round.

 

[LPKingsFan]

and you advance to the bonus round.

Let's not downplay the fact that Durant evolved from star to superstar from year 2 to year 3. I'd say coaching is just a minor factor in our development, our celling is as high as Evans and Cousins can take us. Right now, both are struggling and this team isn't going anywhere.

 

[Asaf]

Let's not downplay the fact that Durant evolved from star to superstar from year 2 to year 3. I'd say coaching is just a minor factor in our development, our celling is as high as Evans and Cousins can take us. Right now, both are struggling and this team isn't going anywhere.

You say that as if coaching has nothing to do with young players' development.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Oh, definitely not saying that. PJ had Durant out of position at SG, and switching to SF helped him blossom into stardom. Coaches definitely need to put the players into a position to succeed. Clearly, that's not happening here at this point. Yet while good coaching seems to be necessary for development, it's surely not sufficient.

I think the OP had a fantastic point that should not be lost in squabbling over the coaching. Everyone here was talking about following the OKC model... well it's important not to forget that said model included a mere 23 wins in its second year of implementation. And that was even with the young superstar stepping up from his 20/4/2 rookie campaign to a stellar 25/6.5/3 sophomore season (which we haven't seen Reke sniff yet--is that Westphal's fault? Perhaps to some extent, but I know from living with basketball players at college that plantar fasciitis is nothing to sniff at, either).

 

[TheWileyVet]

Here's the prob with this model - OKC's top 2 are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than our top 2. Realisically we will never get anyone close to Durant's level and Westbrook is nearly a superstar himself


We can only hope that Tyreke and DMC can get close to Westbrook's level and we can get someone (Thompson, Greene, Casspi, Draft Pick) to become our 3rd star

 

[kingsnation]

But who is the Kings' Green?

Umm. my question is Who is the Kings' Durant? In other words --- OKC has a MVP candidate.

 

[Asaf]

Oh, definitely not saying that. PJ had Durant out of position at SG, and switching to SF helped him blossom into stardom. Coaches definitely need to put the players into a position to succeed. Clearly, that's not happening here at this point. Yet while good coaching seems to be necessary for development, it's surely not sufficient.

I think the OP had a fantastic point that should not be lost in squabbling over the coaching. Everyone here was talking about following the OKC model... well it's important not to forget that said model included a mere 23 wins in its second year of implementation. And that was even with the young superstar stepping up from his 20/4/2 rookie campaign to a stellar 25/6.5/3 sophomore season (which we haven't seen Reke sniff yet--is that Westphal's fault? Perhaps to some extent, but I know from living with basketball players at college that plantar fasciitis is nothing to sniff at, either).

Again, if you're going to make comparisons, you have to put the examples in the correct context. OKC's 23 season win started out at 3-29 with a dumb coach, and ended 20-30 with a good coach. The good coach also turned Durant from a poorly-utilized young player with a lot of potential to a superstar that is regularly mentioned in the MVP conversation.

In contrast, our 25-win season last season started 14-16 with a pretty damn good coach. In January 2010, that good coach's evil twin took over and started making one dumb decision after another, causing us to make an impressive 11-41 to end the season. Unfortunately, the evil twin is still in power and still makes the worst possible decisions every time, as if he is actually trying to make us lose badly and get our players to regress instead of progress.

So yea, the records are similar, the talents may have some kind of resemblence, but the direction, oh the direction... that's the exact opposite in the two cases.

 

[hrdboild]

Here's the prob with this model - OKC's top 2 are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than our top 2. Realisically we will never get anyone close to Durant's level and Westbrook is nearly a superstar himself


We can only hope that Tyreke and DMC can get close to Westbrook's level and we can get someone (Thompson, Greene, Casspi, Draft Pick) to become our 3rd star

It's easy to say that now, but we don't know how good Tyreke and Cousins can be yet. Westbrook was good but not great in his second season. It's still early in the season and Cousins is a 20 year old rookie and Tyreke is playing through an injury. Both of them will be better than they're showing us right now. We don't have that third top 5 pick yet, though we seem to be headed in that direction. Actually, four if you count James Harden who's yet to come into his own in the league but he's shown flashes. Just be patient. We're on the right track. We don't know how the rest of the season is going to play out.

 

[est.1999]

Durant was put out of position. And it wasn't until they fired PJ and Brooks became head coach that moved him to his natural SF position.

Westphal needs to go.

 

[Kingster]

I think you (conveniently?) forgot to mention one very important factor in the transformation of OKC going from 3-29 in the first part of that season to 20-30 in the later part. Did their players instantly gain 5 years of experience in a month? Probably not. Maybe it was something else. Let's think...

Great. Not only am I assuming for your benefit that the Kings are as talented as the 2008 OKC team, and choosing the most successful youth-oriented team in our memory, I'm just going to look at the record after Brooks took over.

Carlisimo was fired November 22. I don't know what happened from Nov 22 - Nov 30.

But I do know that Brooks compiled a record of 21-41 from December through season end. That's a .339 win-loss percentage.

So what you can say at season end is that if the Kings, because we all know they are as talented as the 2008 Thunder (right?) don't have a win-loss percentage of .339 or better (27 wins), then they have really underperformed.

 

[Asaf]

Great. Not only am I assuming for your benefit that the Kings are as talented as the 2008 OKC team, and choosing the most successful youth-oriented team in our memory, I'm just going to look at the record after Brooks took over.

Carlisimo was fired November 22. I don't know what happened from Nov 22 - Nov 30.

But I do know that Brooks compiled a record of 21-41 from December through season end. That's a .339 win-loss percentage.

So what you can say at season end is that if the Kings, because we all know they are as talented as the 2008 Thunder (right?) don't have a win-loss percentage of .339 or better, then they have really underperformed.

I don't know why you think you're assuming anything for my benefit. I never said the Kings are as talented as OKC. I am one of those who thinks that the exaggerated expectations from Tyreke and the constant comparisons to LeBron due to that stupid 20-5-5 chase were hurting both him and the team.

Having said that, I think it is foolish to overlook the affect of the coaching on both the trajectory of the teams and the development of their players, and it's not even about the record. I don't think you need to look at the record to see that we are an extremely poorly coached team, and that we are heading in the wrong direction.

As for the Brooks story, he compiled a 21-41 record that season but ended with 20-30, which shows that after a rather short adjustment period he managed to stabilize the ship, and of course we all know what happened the next season. Do you really believe that Westphal is in the process of stabilizing our ship? Do you think he is leading it in the right direction? Is Westphal our Carlisimo or is he our Brooks?

 

[xrzn]

Reke = Westbrook
Cousins = Green

Kings need a Durant. If you can't draft one, you sign one. Melo has similar traits. Just saying...

 

[Asaf]

reke = westbrook

what?

 

[Kingster]

I don't know why you think you're assuming anything for my benefit. I never said the Kings are as talented as OKC. I am one of those who thinks that the exaggerated expectations from Tyreke and the constant comparisons to LeBron due to that stupid 20-5-5 chase were hurting both him and the team.

Having said that, I think it is foolish to overlook the affect of the coaching on both the trajectory of the teams and the development of their players, and it's not even about the record. I don't think you need to look at the record to see that we are an extremely poorly coached team, and that we are heading in the wrong direction.

As for the Brooks story, he compiled a 21-41 record that season but ended with 20-30, which shows that after a rather short adjustment period he managed to stabilize the ship, and of course we all know what happened the next season. Do you really believe that Westphal is in the process of stabilizing our ship? Do you think he is leading it in the right direction? Is Westphal our Carlisimo or is he our Brooks?

Next year is next year. We can talk about that .... next year.

Brooks was up down and all around. He had 2 wins in December, 7 in January, 3 in February, 7 in March and 2 in April. You can't cherry pick the data. The .339 record is appropriate.

Oh, it's not about the record is it? Come on. Do you think record is independent of performance? Do you think you can segregate it like a test tube? (Yeah, they had a .339 record, but they really played very well while doing it..... ) Hardly. A team has a crappy record because it plays crappy. Period. And the most fantastic example for your side of the argument indicates that Westphal would have an underperforming team if the Kings got 26 wins this year. So you can say at the end of the year that if Westphal gets 26 wins or less - see, I told you so - he should have 27 wins because that's what OKC had (as Brooks applied percentage to the entire 82 game season).

 

[Asaf]

Next year is next year. We can talk about that .... next year.

Brooks was up down and all around. He had 2 wins in December, 7 in January, 3 in February, 7 in March and 2 in April. You can't cherry pick the data. The .339 record is appropriate.

Oh, it's not about the record is it? Come on. Do you think record is independent of performance? Do you think you can segregate it like a test tube? (Yeah, they had a .339 record, but they really played very well while doing it..... ) Hardly. A team has a crappy record because it plays crappy. Period. And the most fantastic example for your side of the argument indicates that Westphal would have an underperforming team if the Kings got 26 wins this year. So you can say at the end of the year that if Westphal gets 26 wins or less - see, I told you so - he should have 27 wins because that's what OKC had (as Brooks applied percentage to the entire 82 game season).

OKC lost a ton of close games under Brooks and never looked nearly as pathetic as we do. That's what young promising teams do. You talk a lot about records, but have you actually watched the games and seasons you are comparing?

Also, this year is our next year. We already had the 25 win season last year.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Also, this year is our next year. We already had the 25 win season last year.

Not by the analysis of the OP. This is year 2 w/ Tyreke, and in OKC's year 2 with Durant they won 23 games. We were certainly expecting more, yes, but OKC seemed to do ok.

 

[Sarunas]

Reke = Westbrook

Come on. Westbrook is a top 5 PG this year, Reke isn't a top 5 anything. Nor was he last year when he was better than this year. Not only do we not have a Durant (potentially the most talented player in the NBA), but their #2 guy (Westbrook) is better than our #1 guy, and their #3 guy (Green) is better than anyone else we have. Maybe thats a reason why they improved so drastically over a couple years.

Not saying Reke can't as good or better than Westbrook, but its foolish to compare the two right now imo. While I am skeptical of where this ship is headed, lets see who we can draft, and who we "spend big" on this summer after the CBA before we call it.

 

[rhythmless]

what?

Is your incredulity due to the fact that Westbrook is far and away better than Tyreke right now, or that of a homer, insisting that Tyreke is a superstar far and above the likes of a Russell Westbrook?

 

[rhythmless]

Come on. Westbrook is a top 5 PG this year, Reke isn't a top 5 anything. Nor was he last year when he was better than this year. Not only do we not have a Durant (potentially the most talented player in the NBA), but their #2 guy (Westbrook) is better than our #1 guy, and their #3 guy (Green) is better than anyone else we have.

Not saying Reke can't as good or better than Westbrook, but its foolish to compare the two right now imo.

Again, this ENTIRE thread is about comparing OKC back then to the Kings now.

As for foolish, you should peruse the threads made in ranking where Tyreke is in the guard hierarchy. It's gut busting.

 

[FaStRmAn]

We can only hope for a YOUTH REVIVAL.

In reality, we can only hope for a youth revival. None of us are really qualified to break down the personel of the Kings team and really know where the Kings are at now and what level they will get to in the future. You just have to hope that Geoff Petrie did a good job drafting players who will continue to improve and to fit the current system they are running. Petrie has done a decent job of acquiring talent within the parameters of the budget he has been allowed. He has a tight budget at this point, so talent aquisition has been difficult at best.

When and until the Kings spend more money on their team, the talent level will be less than they need to be competative. The Maloofs say after the new CBA is signed, that they will then spend more money on the team. But as it sits now, the Kings have the LOWEST payroll in the league with Dalembert's contract of 13.5 Mil up at the end of the season. It will give the Kings a lot of flexability in the future, but it doesn't look very good on the floor at the present.

I guess you have to look at this year's team as a work in progress. No one can possibly expect this team as currently constructed to be a competative team. Certainly there are no possibilities for a playoff spot. It is all about young players getting experience by OJT. The vets on this team wont be here most likely in a year or 2. Only the young players on this team matter in the long run. I just hope that the team achieves some level of cohesion and can generate enough teamwork to make the games watchable.

 

[Kingsguy881]

Is your incredulity due to the fact that Westbrook is far and away better than Tyreke right now, or that of a homer, insisting that Tyreke is a superstar far and above the likes of a Russell Westbrook?

Westbrook in his second year avg'd 16.1 pts, 8 dimes, 4.9 rebs, 41.8% shooting, 22.1% 3pt, 3.3 turnovers and 1.3 steals a game.

Tyreke so far in his second year has avg's of 17.6 pts, 5.4 dimes, 4.8 rebs, 39.9% shooting, 28.3% 3pt, 3.3 turnovers and 1.5 steals.

The only glaring difference is the dimes. I don't get how Westbrook is 'far and away' better than Tyreke when comparing their career ascent as I am pretty sure if Tyreke had Durant as his wingman that 8 assists would be attainable.

 

[Asaf]

Westbrook in his second year avg'd 16.1 pts, 8 dimes, 4.9 rebs, 41.8% shooting, 22.1% 3pt, 3.3 turnovers and 1.3 steals a game.

Tyreke so far in his second year has avg's of 17.6 pts, 5.4 dimes, 4.8 rebs, 39.9% shooting, 28.3% 3pt, 3.3 turnovers and 1.5 steals.

The only glaring difference is the dimes. I don't get how Westbrook is 'far and away' better than Tyreke when comparing their career ascent as I am pretty sure if Tyreke had Durant as his wingman that 8 assists would be attainable.

Again with the stats... Have you seen Westbrook play? The guy is all over the court doing everything to help his team win. If he doesn't have the ball in his hand he will go after that offensive rebound. He controls the pace of the game. He does everything that Tyreke doesn't . When Tyreke doesn't have the ball in his hands he just stands around with no clue what to do. He only has one gear when determining the pace of the game. Those are things that don't show up in statistics, and are the difference between a leader that inspires the team and gets you wins and a talented player who is unable to inspire his teammates and drive them to victory. Tyreke has the POTENTIAL to some day be as good as Westbrook, but right now he is far from it and it's on him to prove he can get to that level. Relying on stats to say he is at that level or assume that it's a sure thing that he will get there by next year is just pure homerism. Anyone in the league outside of Sac would die laughing at this comparison.

 

[asakkings]

Westbrook is leading the pack of all the recent Bruins that are breaking out this year, edging out Kevin Love, and Collison.

 

[Kingsguy881]

Again with the stats... Have you seen Westbrook play? The guy is all over the court doing everything to help his team win. If he doesn't have the ball in his hand he will go after that offensive rebound. He controls the pace of the game. He does everything that Tyreke doesn't . When Tyreke doesn't have the ball in his hands he just stands around with no clue what to do. He only has one gear when determining the pace of the game. Those are things that don't show up in statistics, and are the difference between a leader that inspires the team and gets you wins and a talented player who is unable to inspire his teammates and drive them to victory. Tyreke has the POTENTIAL to some day be as good as Westbrook, but right now he is far from it and it's on him to prove he can get to that level. Relying on stats to say he is at that level or assume that it's a sure thing that he will get there by next year is just pure homerism. Anyone in the league outside of Sac would die laughing at this comparison.

Yeah I sure have. Have YOU? Westbrook relied too much on his jumper coming out and even in his second year he was a little out of control. Now granted, he hasn't had the injury issue that is currently slowing down Tyreke but I had Westbrook on my fantasy squad his first 2 years in the league so I watched him heavily. The only difference between Tyreke and Westbrook is elevation. They both are strong, weak jump shooting, get to the rim by bullying and finish well. Westbrook for the first half of last season was not the player that finished the season. He got better as the season went on. His first 15-20 games were not the best games of his career, not even looking at stats I know he sat a lot on my bench to start the season because he just didn't get that his jumper wasn't going to be the strongest point of his game. He elevated his game around the turn of the new year.

That help you out a bit, buddy guy?

 

[LPKingsFan]

Yeah, you guys are having a tough time grasping the timeline comparison. The whole idea behind the thread is to compare the 2010-2011 Kings to the 2008-2009 Thunder. Comparing Westbrook's third season to Tyreke's second is missing the point.

I'd add, though, that if you would have asked people last year if Landry was better than Green, you'd receive a different response than now. Is this current slump really an accurate measure? Too early to tell.

 

[est.1999]

The Thunder run a lot. That suits Westbrook's game. And it sure does help to not have to have the other teams best defender on you. That's designed for Durant. See the difference?