Petrie Identifying team needs (Rim protector!)

Bricklayer · May 4, 2012

Smallball advocates = just sad to listen to sometimes. Let me point out all the things wrong in just this one post:

1) Camby is anicent, he is also still pretty good. He and Daly COMBINED, as a platoon, to help a shorthanded Rockets squad make a major playoff push late in the season. Daly's minutes and production barely wavered after Camby was acquired. Pre All Star he was 23.2min 7.3ts 7.6reb 1.9blk on .500 shooting, Post All Star he was 21.2min 7.9pts 6.3reb 1.5blk on .513 shooting. Camby starting had little to do with Daly, more to do with Camby. It had almsot no effect on Daly's production at all. Camby BTW Post All Star was 6.0pts 8.4reb 1.4blk. Both guys would have started for us.

2) oh and Daly, in addition to once again ranking 11th in the NBA in rebs/48 and 5th in the NBA in blks/48, also once again made his team 2.6pts/per 100 possessions better on defense. Quite an accomplishemnt when you are subbing in for Camby. I don't know how they calculate Siple Ratings at 82games.com,. but his was 2nd on the entire roster squad. Eyeballing it, his +/- was 4th on the team at a +2.7.

Meanwhile our proposed smallball perimeter guys were nearly a dead wash defenisvely in Anderson's case (0.4pts/per 100 better) and a painful 4.9pts/per 100 possessions WORSE on on defense in the case of Ilyasova. Anderson is credited with holding his opponents to a 14.9PER (again dead average -- 15PER is league average), Ilyasova with holding them to a "mere" 18.5PER. I have addressed the potential inaccuracies built into how those sorts of defensive statistics (the opp PER) are calculated. So who knows, maybe these guys are innocent. But there is certainly not a SHRED of evidence that they can function as the sort of stud defender, let alone shotblocker, we need in there.

3) and oh yeah, you can take this up with your fellow smallball lovers: name me the serious contender without a dedicated lane clogger. It remains compeltely bizarre to me how there even are any smallball advocates alive at this point. Gee, Bynum, Duncan, Noah, Ibaka/Perkins etc. patrol the paint for all the good teams, but we'll just do it different anyway because we have a napoleon complex? Makes no sense.

Repeat after me everybody, then let's find the guy:

BIG. DEFENSIVE. IMPACT. SHOTBLOCKER! Woot!

Tetsujin · May 4, 2012

The_Jamal said:

Being willing to do something is different from actually being able to do it. I could be willing to go to Mars but unless someone gives me a damn rocket ship, it probably isn't happening.

The_Jamal · May 4, 2012

Bricklayer said:

Miami Heat. The favorite to win an NBA title this season. And you want to know why they're going to win a title this season? Stifling TEAM (key word here) defense and having an elite #1 option ( LeBron). Not because they have some dude who can block shots. NBA championship teams are built off of who has the superior TEAM defense and the superior #1 option. Shot-blockers who are elite defenders are very rare in this league. (however, I wouldn't expect you to realize this since you're sold that Dally is a good player) Chandler, Howard, Bynum make the impact they do because they can change the culture of the defense with their presence. They're three of the best post man-defenders/help defenders in basketball along with having the ability to alter shots at the rim The Dalembert , Haywood, and DeAndre Jordan's of the world look pretty because they can block shots so everyone assume's they're great defensive players. Just because you can block a shot does not make you a good defensive player. It's a common misconception that hopefully will be changed sometime soon

You know what amuses me? People who put forth a persona that they know and understand basketball and then incorrectly use stats to support their own opinion. If you understood stats properly, you'd know how flawed PER is. It incorrectly weights offensive contributions and ignores defense outside of blocks and steals. It's just remarkable to me that someone who claims he knows basketball would want Dalembert over Ryan Anderson or Ilyasova, when it's painfully clear who the better fit/player would be.

sdballer · May 4, 2012

The_Jamal said:

Miami Heat. The favorite to win an NBA title this season. And you want to know why they're going to win a title this season? Stifling TEAM (key word here) defense and having an elite #1 option ( LeBron). Not because they have some dude who can block shots. NBA championship teams are built off of who has the superior TEAM defense and the superior #1 option. Shot-blockers who are elite defenders are very rare in this league. (however, I wouldn't expect you to realize this since you're sold that Dally is a good player) Chandler, Howard, Bynum make the impact they do because they can change the culture of the defense with their presence. They're three of the best post man-defenders/help defenders in basketball along with having the ability to alter shots at the rim The Dalembert , Haywood, and DeAndre Jordan's of the world look pretty because they can block shots so everyone assume's they're great defensive players. Just because you can block a shot does not make you a good defensive player. It's a common misconception that hopefully will be changed sometime soon

You know what amuses me? People who put forth a persona that they know and understand basketball and then incorrectly use stats to support their own opinion. If you understood stats properly, you'd know how flawed PER is. It incorrectly weights offensive contributions and ignores defense outside of blocks and steals. It's just remarkable to me that someone who claims he knows basketball would want Dalembert over Ryan Anderson or Ilyasova, when it's painfully clear who the better fit/player would be.

Again, this from the guy that believes hayes is a far superior player to dally. Frankly, i cant tell if you are actually this dense about basketball or just act like a jackass for the sake of instigating stuff on a message board. Either way, its annoying.

The_Jamal · May 5, 2012

sdballer said:

ah Chuck Hayes. thanks for bringing him up:

Allowed .42 PPP and opponents to shoot 18% against him in ISO situations (2nd in the NBA)
Allowed .71 PPP and opponents to shoot 36% against him in post-up situations ( (48th in the NBA)
Allowed .75 PPP and opponents to shoot 35% against him in spot-up situations ( (35th in the NBA)
Overall, allowed .75 PPP and allowed opponents to shoot 37% against him (32nd in the NBA)

Now offensively, you're absolutely correct. He was flat out atrocious and lost all semblance of his offensive game he had in Houston. His rebound numbers were also far worse than I anticipated. His defense speaks for itself though and he did what we brought him here to do. If he can recover his rebounding/offensive skill set, he'll be a more than fine role player

Bricklayer · May 5, 2012

The_Jamal said:

1) who do the Miami Heat start at center? WHO? Can you think of ANY reason the Miami Heat would start that player (Joel Anthony btw) EXCEPT that they too get it, and want/need a shotblocker in there to anchor the middle of their defense? ANY reason? They do not start the solid if undersized Udonis Haslem. They do not smallball with Mike Miller to get that oh so valuable three point shooting. They start a 6'10" stiff. But a stiff who can do one thing well: PROTECT THE RIM.

Don't ever accuse a Pat Riley team of not understanding the overwhelming value of interior shotblocking. He has been its preeminent advocate for 30 gloriously successful years.

P.S. If you think the Heat, given the choice, would take Ryan Anderson on to their roster over Samuel Dalembert you have been eating some funny tastign brownies.

2) Your attempt to to set up a strawman is feeble. You know as well as I do precisely what that Opponent PER stat is used for. That it said something that shot holes in your argument was as inevitable as it is not regrettable.

2) It tells me basically everything I need to know about someone's basketball acumen if they are so tone deaf they would prefer Ryan Anderson or Ersan Ilyasova to a player that actually actually excels at the defensive traits that may well be the difference between us winning and losing . You should go apply to the Kings front office. You would fit right in. I hear they give out little tiaras to any team who manages to field the worst defensive team in the league 2 years in a row. 10 straight years out of the playoffs gets a commemorative ring. You should have a good shot at both.

Bricklayer · May 5, 2012

The_Jamal said:

And you have to let this one go. We were all there watching. Sans a midnwipe delete button, which many would cheerfully embrace, Chuck's performance this year is emblazoned. And no, he did not remotely do what he was brought here to do. His defensive impact was none. His offense was so bad his opponent's basically doubled up his PER. This was somebody the numbnuts in our front office brought in to be our defensive captain. That's called flopping rather miserably.

Fortunately for Chuck we've got a stack of other mistakes to wade through, so he probably does not have to worry about being amnestied. But it was that bad. Here's praying it was injury related, because he stunk it up bad enough he may not be movable. I sincerely doubt there are many GMs out there who share your sentiments that he did what he was brought in to do.

The_Jamal · May 5, 2012

Bricklayer said:

1. Joel Anthony starts in the same way DeShawn Stevenson started for the Mavs last season. The Heat are at their best best when they run with Haslem and/or Mike Miller into the game with their big 3. If Anthony was such as vital piece because "he blocks da shots" then why doesn't he get more minutes? 21 MPG regular season, 16 MPG in the playoffs. I'd hardly call him vital to Miami's success. And no freaking duh the Heat would take Dally over Ryan Anderson. Ryan Anderson is a PF. Dally is a C. The Heat need a C. Agan, Duh. It doesn't make Dally remotely close to the player Anderson is though.

2. Any form of PER is stupid. Just flat out a terrible stat with too many holes in it to be reliable. It favors the offensive players in every sense and ignores defense. Here's my favorite example of the power of PER:

Bruce Bowen career PER: 8.2
John Salmons career PER: 12.8

See the Problem?

bajaden · May 6, 2012

I'm not going to take a side in this. I think both sides have legitimate arguments. What I take issue with, is the "Hit a homerun or nothing attitude". I doubt anyone would turn down a legit shotblocker, even Jamal. But, to reduce your vision to nothing but tunnel vision in the search for the holy grail is foolhardy. Anderson and Ilyasova are both upgrades to our roster. Would I prefer Ibaka? Of course, but I'm not going to get Ibaka. How about Dalembert? To be honest, I'm not sure. He had a chance to return, and passed it up. He apparently wasn't happy here. He wasn't happy in Philly. And now he seems unhappy in Houston with his diminished playing time.

Dalembert has just a little too much of "Me" in his game. Something you want in a star player, but not so much in a supporting player. So even if we could lure him back, or trade for him, I'm not so sure he's the answer we're looking for. Sometimes settling for almost, prevents real progress. And as was pointed out, Dalembert is a center, and both Ilyasova and Anderson are PF's, and both are more talented overall than Dalembert. Plus, both are 5 to 6 years younger than Dalembert. If we get lucky in the lottery, then all of this is a moot point. But even if we were to get lucky in the lottery, I would still pursue Ilyasova or Anderson. The whole point is to upgrade the team, and both those guys would do that. And thats not small ball!

The_Jamal · May 6, 2012

bajaden said:

Oh absolutely. I would love to pair Cousins with an Ibaka or Chandler type of player. However, as you said, both guys are not exactly available and those kinds of players don't grow on tress. Contrary to popular belief, shotblockers who are actually good defenders are quite rare in this league. I would much rather pair Cousins with 2 guys who are huge upgrades to our offense and overall team rather than settle for a guy who couldn't maintain his starting job to a 38 yr old Marcus Camby.

Bricklayer · May 6, 2012

bajaden said:

No. That is EXACTLY what we did last summer that got us into trouble. This team does not lack for talent. What it lacks for is FIT. Last summer Geoff did exactly what you are advocating he do again -- ooh, he's "good" let's get him. And him. And ooh, him! And it created a mess. Its dumb. JJ hickson is a "good" player in an abstract sense. He averaged 16 and 10 the half season before arriving here, 15 and 8 the half season after leaving here. But while he's "good' and has talent, its not the talent we need. It did not fit. No more of those mistakes. That's tone deafness unbecoming of a GM.

Its not about collecting random talent for us. We have our talent. What we need now are all the correct pieces and roelpalyers that the good teams surround their talent with. Piece #1, as in absolute always there on every good team, we will never be a team worth bothering about without, is the shotblocker. THE single most archetypal player on any top team after you get past the stars. And next to Cousins? Give me a break. Its not a want, its not even a need. Its a flat necessity. And clogging the team up with more random junk and contracts because we don't understand that, and lack the smarts and courage to address that will do nothing but strangle our talent in a thicket of weeds. How many fans you thinik this team will have after its 7th straight no playoff year with the owners eternally threatening to move? How about after #8 after we've lost Reke as well and DeMarcus is squirming? #9? Demaracus wants out? There is no more time for screwing around being stupid and picking up random "ooh he's good" players. "Good" is almost irrelevant. The only "ooh" that matters for us is "ooh! he's just what we need!"

Oh, and I don't want to hear about how we can't get a shotblocker. That's become an excuse to be cowards. Teams around the league get them all the time. Some franchises are never without one, getting player after player to fill that role while we flutter about "oh my oh my, I don't think we can do that." Piffle. You see what happened when Golden State got new ownership? They wanted a shotblocker BADLY. They bid on every one on the market, missed. So they made offers for Howard. Missed. But they kept on and finally scored Bogut. Expensive? Yes. But we don't need Bogut. And the point would be they made it a priority and what do you know, it happened. We don't, and continualy take the easy way out just settlign for this guy or that because "ooh, he's good". And there isn.t anybody who's ever won anything just going with the flow and taking what fell in their lap.

P.S. I again will mention that I do not have an objection ot the idea of having an Anderson or Ilyasova on a roster. I have avehement objection to having them on the roster instead of a shotblocker and the idea that they are who you start next to Cousins. 3rd big behind Cousins/shotblocker? Er..maybe. Its an idea. 4th big? Love to have them. Although obviously they are better and cost too much to be a 4th guy. Cousins/shotblocker/JT/Ilyasova or Anderson? Sign me up.

pshn80 · May 6, 2012

I think our GM said we need a shot blocker. Any counter opinions?

bajaden · May 6, 2012

Bricklayer said:

First, before you bandy my name around again in favor of a bad idea. I didn't suggest going and getting Hickson, and I certainlly didn't suggest getting Salmons. I had serious reservations about Hickson, but thought I'd give him a chance to change my mind. Didn't happen! I had no desire to see Salmons on this team again. Because yes, he is a bad fit on a team loaded with 6'6" players and below. And, because I do advocate getting Anderson, and Ilyasova in particular, that doesn't mean I don't want us to aquire a shotblocker. Its not an either/or thing with me. I might add, that both Ilyasova and Anderson are 6'10", and certainly don't fall into the catagory of smallball.

I agree that we have talent on the team, and that some of it is redundit or just doesn't fit properly. But most of our top talent is starting, in Cuz, JT, Tyreke, MT, and IT. After that, it either doesn't fit, (Salmons, Hayes) isn't what I consider above average talent. (Greene, Outlaw, Cisco) or is unproven talent, (Fredette, Whiteside, Honeycutt). We have zero depth at the PF position, and our backup center is 6'6" tall. We need some solid proven depth on the bench. Or a player that is good enough to move one of our starters to the bench.

Now I know your obsessed with getting a shotblocker, but contrary to what you might believe, its not the be all/end all. Would it be great? Damm right! And if you can pull off a deal to get one, I'm right there with you. But to say that almost every good team has one, is pure nonsense. Who was the shotblocker on the great Celtic teams with Bird, McHale and company. Robert Parish? I think not! He was a good defender, but hardly a prolific shotblocker. How about the great Detriot teams with Thomas and Rodman. Please don't tell me it was Bill Laimbeer. Again, a good team defender, but hardly a shotblocker. How about the Bulls with Jordan. Cartwright? Nope! But all these teams played great team defense. As much as Dalembert was loved, I don't see any rings on his fingers.

Now that might not be fair, but my point is, that a great shotblocker doesn't assure you of anything in the win collumn. It can, and in some cases it does. But only if the entire team plays good team defense. Something seriously lacking on the Kings. Make no mistake, I'm all for getting a great shotblocker. Why the hell do you think I want Davis next to Cousins? But at the same time, the next best shotblocker in the draft is Henson, and I won't take him over a more talented player just because he can block a few shots. Because thats how you get in trouble.

But you have me curious. Since advocating anything other than a shotblocker, and, saying that its hard to aquire one makes you some kind of coward. You tell me who and how. Who is it you want, and just how do we aquire him? If its that easy, you explain it to me, because I'm all ears.

And by the way, I don't like Ilyasova because he's just a good player, I like him because he's a better all around player right now, with the ability to get better, than Hayes, Greene, Cisco, Fredette, Outlaw, Honeycutt, Whiteside, and Thompson. He's not just a good player, he's a very good player. Now thats just my subjective opinion, and I'm sure others have a different one. But I base my choices on my opinion, not that of others.

Bricklayer · May 6, 2012

First I said the front office were cowards, not you.

Second the answers to the Celtics was McHale, who was one of the two best PF defenders of all time and blocked 2 shots a game for them through their peak years (nor was Parish a slouch -- he too blocked 2 a game in his younger years), the Pistons was John Salley (again blocking 2 shots playing alongside two All Defensive Team Members). First Bulls teams was legitimately shy -- Horace Grant did the duties, but more realistically they invoked the "start three All Defensive Team members and the GOAT" exception.

And Daly does not have a ring yet. Neither did Tyson Chandler before last year. Neither does Joel Anthony or Serge Ibaka right now (although Perkins does). But one of those guys will very likely have one in 6 weeks because that player is almost always there. Year after year after year. Denying it is just approaching willful self delusion, but my do a lot of fans just cling ferociously to that delusion. Its truly bizarre. Why such resistance to a patently obvious law of the NBA? Other teams get the law. Others teams get these players. Other teams win. Why on Earth are so many people so ridiculously stubborn about such a simple concept? Saying you can't win without a HOF talent inspires people to say nuh uh! because its so hard to get one and fans that don't have one want to cling to their fantasy of winning without that player (hint BTW, we've got at least one now). But lane cloggers aren't THAT rare. They are rarely seen in Sacramento, but virtually every good team in the league finds ways to keep on coming up with them. This is a doable thing, if you understand how important it is that it get done.

Why do I want a lane clogger? Because Miami's greatest competition in the East had Noah (with a little help from Gibson). And now with that team ruined by injury, their greatest competition has Hibbert. Because the West will be won as Ibaka/Perkins faces off with Bynum who will face off with Jordan who will face off with Duncan. Because for decades if you couldn't have a star center fill that role (Shaq/Hakeem/Admiral/Duncan) then a star roleplayer would do (Big Ben etc.), and if you couldn't find one of those, then a tough roleplayer (Perkins, Chandler etc.) of the right type could fil that critical niche. But it wil be filled.

P.S. acquiring one = see where our pick is going to be first. Davis, Drummond and Henson all might be him. Barring MKG we should probably take one of those guys regardless of other plans. The Daly and Camby situations bear watching -- did Daly not lioke Sacramento? Not like Cousins? Or not like Westphal? So does Okafor (who I have never particularly liked but has been doing it for a long time). Then the third tier are stabs at Asik etc. The coach matters too. I assume its Smart. I also continue to point oout that Pat Riley and his disciples have coached every great center of the past 15 years in this league, and understand them better than anyone. And JVG is out there and available to coach ours. If he did he would isntantly want defensive players and shotblockers, as he always does..

SacTownKid · May 6, 2012

sdballer said:

Eh, both are role players, if used right Hayes has a chance to be a great fit with Cousins. Height used with no on court correlation other than....size as a reason for doing so is equally as dense.

If the idea was to find a backup C I'd say Daly was a better choice. Funny, I thought Hayes was supposed to play with Cousins and defend players like Al Jefferson, Blake Griffin, Aldridge, etc. I guess he did, had some real success to, then for some odd reason played nothing but backup C the other games they played against those teams.

Gilles · May 6, 2012

Cousins as a first line of paint protection is porous defense plus foul trouble. Cousins as a secondary shotblocker is solid defense plus 36+ minutes of Cousins. Why is it even a question?

bajaden · May 7, 2012

Bricklayer said:

I'm not a big fan of Hensons, but he's better than anything we've got that resembles a shotblocker. Drummond, is a risky pick, but I certainly take him over Henson on the chance that he can accidently be better than Henson. If someone finds a way to light his fire, you have a star in the making. Big If though!

If I had to guess, I'd say that Dalembert didn't like Westphal. If you go back through Westphal's history, he's had run in's with several big men. Especially those that speak their mind. Hawes found his way onto Westphal's S list. Asik would be a nice addition as a backup center, and I do think he's a little underrated. I think Okafor is one of those guys that looks good from afar, but not so good up close. Just my feeling. As far as Dalembert goes, I have to go back to my, what my gut tells me, feeling. If I have to convince myself to like a player, then my gut tells me no! Not very scientific, but its been right by a huge margin more than its been wrong.

When has it been wrong? Well, my gut told me that Kevin Durant wouldn't be as good as he's been. So when its wrong, its really wrong. Not that I didn't think he'd be good, just not this good. Once again, its all about fit, either with the team, or with the position. They had Durant playing PF, (Tyreke at SF anyone), and when he was switched to SF, Wa La, a star was born. But I digress! Lets see how lucky or unlucky we get in the lottery. I know most boards have Drummond going top three. I don't think thats going to happen. I think its very possible that he'll slide down to the 5th or 6th spot. A lot will depend on the team workouts, and the measurements from the combine. The two most risky players in the draft, are Drummond, and Perry Jones. Both could be total busts, or, both could be superstars.

bajaden · May 7, 2012

Gilles said:

The question is, not what Cousins has done so far on defense, although you have to consider that as a parameter of capability, but how good do you think he can be? I think we can safely say that he'll never be an Ibaka. But with the proper footwork and defensive fundamentals, he could be a good man defender in the mold of a Perkins, or even a younger Duncan. Duncan was never an above the rim player, but he was, and still is to a lesser extent, a good defender. So far, Cousins appears to be dedicated to becoming a great player. But he's like a young bull in a china shop with no direction.

So allowing for growth, and taking into consideration, the fire he has to be great, just how good do you think he can be?

Section 101 · May 7, 2012

Who was the better shot blocker this year Chandler or Hawes?

Kingster · May 7, 2012

bajaden said:

First, before you bandy my name around again in favor of a bad idea. I didn't suggest going and getting Hickson, and I certainlly didn't suggest getting Salmons. I had serious reservations about Hickson, but thought I'd give him a chance to change my mind. Didn't happen! I had no desire to see Salmons on this team again. Because yes, he is a bad fit on a team loaded with 6'6" players and below. And, because I do advocate getting Anderson, and Ilyasova in particular, that doesn't mean I don't want us to aquire a shotblocker. Its not an either/or thing with me. I might add, that both Ilyasova and Anderson are 6'10", and certainly don't fall into the catagory of smallball.

I agree that we have talent on the team, and that some of it is redundit or just doesn't fit properly. But most of our top talent is starting, in Cuz, JT, Tyreke, MT, and IT. After that, it either doesn't fit, (Salmons, Hayes) isn't what I consider above average talent. (Greene, Outlaw, Cisco) or is unproven talent, (Fredette, Whiteside, Honeycutt). We have zero depth at the PF position, and our backup center is 6'6" tall. We need some solid proven depth on the bench. Or a player that is good enough to move one of our starters to the bench.

Now I know your obsessed with getting a shotblocker, but contrary to what you might believe, its not the be all/end all. Would it be great? Damm right! And if you can pull off a deal to get one, I'm right there with you. But to say that almost every good team has one, is pure nonsense. Who was the shotblocker on the great Celtic teams with Bird, McHale and company. Robert Parish? I think not! He was a good defender, but hardly a prolific shotblocker. How about the great Detriot teams with Thomas and Rodman. Please don't tell me it was Bill Laimbeer. Again, a good team defender, but hardly a shotblocker. How about the Bulls with Jordan. Cartwright? Nope! But all these teams played great team defense. As much as Dalembert was loved, I don't see any rings on his fingers.

Now that might not be fair, but my point is, that a great shotblocker doesn't assure you of anything in the win collumn. It can, and in some cases it does. But only if the entire team plays good team defense. Something seriously lacking on the Kings. Make no mistake, I'm all for getting a great shotblocker. Why the hell do you think I want Davis next to Cousins? But at the same time, the next best shotblocker in the draft is Henson, and I won't take him over a more talented player just because he can block a few shots. Because thats how you get in trouble.

But you have me curious. Since advocating anything other than a shotblocker, and, saying that its hard to aquire one makes you some kind of coward. You tell me who and how. Who is it you want, and just how do we aquire him? If its that easy, you explain it to me, because I'm all ears.

And by the way, I don't like Ilyasova because he's just a good player, I like him because he's a better all around player right now, with the ability to get better, than Hayes, Greene, Cisco, Fredette, Outlaw, Honeycutt, Whiteside, and Thompson. He's not just a good player, he's a very good player. Now thats just my subjective opinion, and I'm sure others have a different one. But I base my choices on my opinion, not that of others.

Nice post.

Regardless of whether we get an above average shot blocker or not, this team has to learn how to switch on defense a lot better than they do, and sustain defensive effort much better than they do. If they got a legit 3 who could play D, switched Tyreke to the 2, AND payed some attention to detail on defense, they would be a much better defensive team, imo. Even without a major shot blocker.

Kingster · May 7, 2012

Petrie mentioned 3 pt shooting and rim protector as major needs. However, he didn't mention 3 pt defense as an area of major need, even though the Kings made All-Stars of 3 pt shooters during the course of the season. Why is that?

bajaden · May 7, 2012

Kingster said:

In general, the Kings get killed by the pick and roll. We simply don't defend it in a way that allows our defense to reset. For the most part, the blame goes on whomever our big is on the defensive side. Can anyone remember back to the days of Scott Pollard. He's one of those guys that didn't do any one thing great, but was great at doing a lot of the little things very well. If I can jog anyone's memory of Scott, remember him defending the pick and roll by coming off and pushing the other teams point guard out as far as he could on the floor, thereby defeating the pass to the roller, and giving his team time to make the appropiate switches. The key is, he stopped the ball from moving for a long enough period of time to defeat the purpose of the pick and roll.

The only player I saw on the Kings that did that on a regular basis was Hayes. On occasion it was Thompson, and every once in a while it was Cousins. In fairness, to Thompson, who defendes the pick and roll pretty well, he was seldom the player involved at the top of the key, and was usually the backdoor protector. Because of a breakdown at the beginning of the play, the other team was going to get one of two things. A clear lane to the basket, or a wide open jumpshot. Too many times we want to blame Tyreke, IT, Thornton, or Fredette for not fighting through the screen. But if a screen is set properly, and the other team knows how to use a screen properly, the screen is going to work. So at that point, its on your big man to step out and push.

Long story short, we didn't defend the pick and roll very well. It caused our defense to breakdown, and more often than not, the other team scored.

Bricklayer · May 7, 2012

Kingster said:

Because you don't pick up "3pt defending" personnel. Other than better defenders in general or a better defensive coach, you can't address that narrow an area via personnlel decisions. You can find a 3pt shooter or a shotblocker. But defending the 3pt line is something that almost anybody shoudl be able to do -- IT possibly excepted because guys can shoot over him. Normally when people get torched on defense its because they can't stay in front of guys or aren't strong enough to stop them in the post. Letting guys drain threes all night is more of a team defense failure.

MassachusettsKingsFan · May 7, 2012

bajaden said:

I agree with this. PnR defense was awful. When you watch some of the better teams, like I'm sure a lot of people have been lately with the playoffs .. some big's are able to show on picks so well they force the guard to go backwards, and they use their length to prevent the guard from having the vision to pass it to the roller. We aren't even close to that. Against the Kings, opposing guards are able to get around the screen and into the paint with ease.

I think some of it's coaching, and some of it is the players not responding to the coaching. Pick and Roll defense has a lot to do with team defensive 'rules'. I hear about it all the time with the Celtics. These 'rules' allow everyone on the court to know what their help defenders will do in every situation, because it is the same thing they would do in that situation. Breaking the defensive rules is just as bad as moving to the wrong spot or running the wrong play on offense.

So this brings up a lot of questions. Does Smart not teach the players what he wants them to do in these situations? or do the players not 'get it'? or did Smart just not have enough time to implement all his rules due to the coaching change and condensed schedule?

I don't know, but it needs to get better. And it makes sense that Hayes is best at it, he's apparently very vocal on defense ... and communication is KEY when it comes to defending something like a pick.

DesertFox · May 7, 2012

bajaden said:

In general, the Kings get killed by the pick and roll. We simply don't defend it in a way that allows our defense to reset. For the most part, the blame goes on whomever our big is on the defensive side. Can anyone remember back to the days of Scott Pollard. He's one of those guys that didn't do any one thing great, but was great at doing a lot of the little things very well. If I can jog anyone's memory of Scott, remember him defending the pick and roll by coming off and pushing the other teams point guard out as far as he could on the floor, thereby defeating the pass to the roller, and giving his team time to make the appropiate switches. The key is, he stopped the ball from moving for a long enough period of time to defeat the purpose of the pick and roll.

The only player I saw on the Kings that did that on a regular basis was Hayes. On occasion it was Thompson, and every once in a while it was Cousins. In fairness, to Thompson, who defendes the pick and roll pretty well, he was seldom the player involved at the top of the key, and was usually the backdoor protector. Because of a breakdown at the beginning of the play, the other team was going to get one of two things. A clear lane to the basket, or a wide open jumpshot. Too many times we want to blame Tyreke, IT, Thornton, or Fredette for not fighting through the screen. But if a screen is set properly, and the other team knows how to use a screen properly, the screen is going to work. So at that point, its on your big man to step out and push.

Long story short, we didn't defend the pick and roll very well. It caused our defense to breakdown, and more often than not, the other team scored.

JT always seemed to be pretty good against the pick, or at least I never noticed him getting beat. Hayes defends it pretty smoothly, and well, Cuz is a good scorer and rebounder.

Thornton in particular has looked bad getting through picks, and Jimmer too obviously.

It's all about effort, which is why guys like Pollard and Hayes are so good at it when they are not the most gifted athletes.

The_Jamal · May 7, 2012

MassachusettsKingsFan said:

This gets lost in the "Smart is teh suckz coach" argument all the time. It's hard enough for a coach to be successful taking over mid-season and the condensed schedule made it impossible for Smart to really teach anything he wanted to the players. It's the same as learning anything you want to learn:it takes time and repition to fully digest and understand something. Smart and his coaching staff didn't have any of that time during the season to work on what he wanted. A full-offseason working with our young guys should lead to drastic improvement on both ends of the court.

Also, Hayes could and will be a very valuable role player once he's utilized correctly. He needs to be playing with a big who can mask his size (I.E Cuz and JT) and let him be the captain of the defense while guarding the other team's best big. Every time he struggled it was with Donte, Hickson, or Outlaw at the PF.

Spike · May 7, 2012

The_Jamal said:

This gets lost in the "Smart is teh suckz coach" argument all the time. It's hard enough for a coach to be successful taking over mid-season and the condensed schedule made it impossible for Smart to really teach anything he wanted to the players. It's the same as learning anything you want to learn:it takes time and repition to fully digest and understand something. Smart and his coaching staff didn't have any of that time during the season to work on what he wanted. A full-offseason working with our young guys should lead to drastic improvement on both ends of the court.

Woodson had similar struggles in New York, I suppose.

sidney · May 7, 2012

Considering the shoestring budget, how about the Birdman if we don't draft big? 2 years / 9M left on his contract. PER was 19 this year in limited minutes. Faried is their new guy and Birdman isn't even playing.

5.3 PPG 4.6REB 1.4BLK in 15 minutes this year.

Kingster · May 7, 2012

MassachusettsKingsFan said:

Totally agree with the sentiment. And I agree with Baja's and Brick's comments, although with respect to Brick, there are guys who are just naturally more talented at defending at the 3 pt line. Thornton isn't one of them. I was just laying the groundwork for further discussion because if we take Petrie at his word, then HE agrees with Baja and Brick because he didn't mention getting backcourt defenders in his comments. And I totally agree with Mass, because something has got to give: Either these guys are mentally incapable of pick and roll D, or the coaching staff has got to coach them up a LOT more on pick and roll D. Just as an example, I believe it was in the last game against SA it was IT that was getting blind picked like nobody's business. That's the only way Parker was getting clear of IT. IT got slammed repeatedly because nobody was calling out the picks, and the Kings defended the pick and roll terribly. That's an area that needs a ton of improvement for next year.

Bricklayer · May 7, 2012

sidney said:

Which is a concern. Is he still a major minutes impact guy? (was he ever is a different question).

I saw his name sitting out there too, but at this point its just...underwhelming.

Petrie Identifying team needs (Rim protector!)

Don't Make Me Use The Bat

The Game Thread Dude

Hall of Famer

Starter

Hall of Famer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat

Don't Make Me Use The Bat

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat

Starter

Hall of Famer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat

Hall of Famer

Starter

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer

All-Star

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat

All-Star

Starter

Hall of Famer

Subsidiary Intermediary

Starter

Hall of Famer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat