[Game] 18/82: Kings vs. Thunder 25 NOV 2024, 7pm PT/10pm ET

[ShastaKingsFan]

The defensive scheme is ultimately on Brown for allowing Luke Loucks to create a scheme that constantly double teams for no reason and leaves shooters wide open. I think he's doing it to protect Sabonis' rim protecting liabilities but it's not effective in this day and age. It would be great in like 1995 but it's the exact opposite of what is needed in 2024.

To allow this to happen is a fireable offense for most any NBA coach with a fringe playoff/play-in team. Brown came into Sacramento with defensive reputation, so there really is no excuse for it

 

[Tizzy Flip]

Do we really believe that the prime Celtics and Lakers teams from the '80's or the 90's Bulls, could not compete today without taking ~30 3 point shots per game?

I don't believe that at all

I don’t, but it’s probably comes down to numbers for the overall basketball universe. Easiest to find players than can shoot 35%+ from 3 than it is to find guys who can score 55%+ from 2

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

I don’t, but it’s probably comes down to numbers for the overall basketball universe. Easiest to find players than can shoot 35%+ from 3 than it is to find guys who can score 55%+ from 2

I just think its lazy reasoning in general (not directed at you), because anyone who watched basketball in the past, knows that good and great teams could compete against today's teams. Do we really believe that the early 2000's Kings teams couldn't win 50 games playing today's teams, unless they they changed their entire scheme to shoot ~30 3's?

 

[Tizzy Flip]

I just think its lazy reasoning in general (not directed at you), because anyone who watched basketball in the past, knows that good and great teams could compete against today's teams. Do we really believe that the early 2000's Kings teams couldn't win 50 games playing today's teams, unless they they changed their entire scheme to shoot ~30 3's?

I totally agree with you. I’m in the AAU world and unfortunately kids are not being developed to play in that style. If you’re 6’5 -6’9 you better know how to shoot the 3. More training there than actual post play

 

[fansinceday1]

I totally agree with you. I’m in the AAU world and unfortunately kids are not being developed to play in that style. If you’re 6’5 -6’9 you better know how to shoot the 3. More training there than actual post play

My buddy was part of youth basketball in Florida a couple years ago and he said everyone was obsessed with becoming the next curry. I think it’s gonna be imperative that the comish make some hard decisions and institute some rules that might not be very popular. Make some hard decisions now that will pay off in the future.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

I totally agree with you. I’m in the AAU world and unfortunately kids are not being developed to play in that style. If you’re 6’5 -6’9 you better know how to shoot the 3. More training there than actual post play

yeah, it's not fair to say that short/mid range shots are not efficient, if you rarely work on them as a team and individual.

I've always thought the variety that the early 2000's Kings played with, was a nearly ideal offense. It felt like they always had the defense guessing

 

[hrdboild]

The attempts is what alarms me. DeRozan being on this team has functionally changed the offense.

Bulls 3PA/game the 3 seasons with DeRozan:
21-22: 28.8 (last)
22-23: 28.9 (last)
23-24: 32.1 (26th)

This year without DeMar: 42.6 (3rd)

Kings last 2 seasons with Coach Brown:
22-23: 37.3 (6th)
23-24: 39.3 (3rd)

This year with DeMar: 34.4 (24th)

Admittedly that isn't a huge drop off from 22-23, but the rank is as teams shoot more and more 3s each season. When I look at the teams that rank in the bottom third of 3PA/game and make the playoffs, they are teams with a defensive identity (ie Twolves, Magic). The Kings with Sabonis at C will be hard pressed to ever make their hay as a defensive team. What is their identity this year? I'm not sure, and maybe they aren't sure either.

I refuse to believe that there's only one style of basketball offense that can work anymore. If this is the new normal and teams have to shoot 40+ threes per game to stay competitive I'm going to strongly consider abandoning the NBA as a league I care about. At least until something changes. It took almost 30 years but MLB did eventually abandon the "all homers all the time" style of offense which started in the late 80s and bring back base stealing so there is hope. Something is going to have to change with the rules though because this shooting arms race is not course-correcting on its own.

It's not necessarily that a few teams shooting only threes is boring. We had D'Antoni style offenses for quite awhile and it was interesting seeing what happens when they faced off against a grind it out defensive minded team. It's that all 30 teams have committed to the same offense which makes this situation intolerable to me. When I watch basketball I want to see a chess match of mental strategy and physical skill not a shooting warmup drill performed with a shot clock and referees.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I just think its lazy reasoning in general (not directed at you), because anyone who watched basketball in the past, knows that good and great teams could compete against today's teams. Do we really believe that the early 2000's Kings teams couldn't win 50 games playing today's teams, unless they they changed their entire scheme to shoot ~30 3's?

Mix-and-match these Kings O-ratings (points scored per 100 possessions) with the seasons:
A) 105.6
B) 105.9
C) 109.0
D) 109.9
E) 110.3
F) 114.0
G) 116.9
H) 119.4

00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
21-22
22-23
23-24
24-25

Spoiler: Answers and commentary

Answers:
A) 00-01
B) 02-03
C) 01-02
D) 21-22
E) 03-04
F) 24-25
G) 23-24
H) 22-23

Of the last four years, only the pre-Brown, mostly-pre-Domas team had a worse ORtg than our best Glory Days team (at least, best in ORtg), and the Brown/Domas teams are miles ahead. Leaguewide, scoring is up, and up a lot, because teams and players have mastered and maximized the three-point shot. Yes, those Glory Days teams had better defensive numbers, but they put those defensive numbers up against teams and players who didn't/couldn't shoot the three. If our team today had to play a Glory Days team, and you took away the three point line, that Glory Days team kills us. If you leave in the three point line, we beat them, and possibly handily. The game has changed.

So yes, I really do believe that the Glory Days Kings teams would not win 50 games in today's NBA without changing their offensive scheme.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

Mix-and-match these Kings O-ratings (points scored per 100 possessions) with the seasons:
A) 105.6
B) 105.9
C) 109.0
D) 109.9
E) 110.3
F) 114.0
G) 116.9
H) 119.4

00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
21-22
22-23
23-24
24-25

Spoiler: Answers and commentary

Answers:
A) 00-01
B) 02-03
C) 01-02
D) 21-22
E) 03-04
F) 24-25
G) 23-24
H) 22-23

Of the last four years, only the pre-Brown, mostly-pre-Domas team had a worse ORtg than our best Glory Days team (at least, best in ORtg), and the Brown/Domas teams are miles ahead. Leaguewide, scoring is up, and up a lot, because teams and players have mastered and maximized the three-point shot. Yes, those Glory Days teams had better defensive numbers, but they put those defensive numbers up against teams and players who didn't/couldn't shoot the three. If our team today had to play a Glory Days team, and you took away the three point line, that Glory Days team kills us. If you leave in the three point line, we beat them, and possibly handily. The game has changed.

So yes, I really do believe that the Glory Days Kings teams would not win 50 games in today's NBA without changing their offensive scheme.

You really believe that this current team would beat the 2001-2003 Kings in a 7 game series? Wow

 

[Capt. Factorial]

You really believe that this current team would beat the 2001-2003 Kings in a 7 game series? Wow

The game has changed. We have a cheat code that team wasn't ready to master.

And let's think about this. Were they better defensively? Yes, but because teams weren't jacking 30+ threes a night, they were sucked in tighter to the paint. Force them to guard the three, and we get better spacing down low which works against that defensive advantage. Does our defense kinda suck? Yes! But the biggest problem with our defense is being unable to guard the three - which that team can't really hurt us with. We immediately improve on defense just because they can't pick on our "hole", and we also get the ability to suck in tighter on the paint, so our defense gets much better.

So we already have a better offense. The nature of our offense hurts their defense, so advantage us. The nature of their offense helps our defense, so advantage us. The rules are the same, the game is different. We don't have to like it, but we should acknowledge it.

 

[SacTownKid]

Whoa, hand checking and most teams in this era are looking like a team full of Josh Smiths from 3.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Whoa, hand checking and most teams in this era are looking like a team full of Josh Smiths from 3.

Yep, different game. How much does it hurt the Glory Days Kings defense if they aren't allowed to hand check?

I'm not a big tennis guy so I'm not going to try to name names, but you can always find the following situation:

Superstar A is basically guaranteed to beat 20th-ranked star B on a hard court. 20th-ranked star B is basically guaranteed to beat Superstar A on a clay court. Same rules, different game.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

The game has changed. We have a cheat code that team wasn't ready to master.

And let's think about this. Were they better defensively? Yes, but because teams weren't jacking 30+ threes a night, they were sucked in tighter to the paint. Force them to guard the three, and we get better spacing down low which works against that defensive advantage. Does our defense kinda suck? Yes! But the biggest problem with our defense is being unable to guard the three - which that team can't really hurt us with. We immediately improve on defense just because they can't pick on our "hole", and we also get the ability to suck in tighter on the paint, so our defense gets much better.

So we already have a better offense. The nature of our offense hurts their defense, so advantage us. The nature of their offense helps our defense, so advantage us. The rules are the same, the game is different. We don't have to like it, but we should acknowledge it.

Yeah, I don't see it. This current team beats the 1984-1987 Celtics or Lakers in a series, because their current offensive rating is higher?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Yeah, I don't see it. This current team beats the 1984-1987 Celtics or Lakers in a series, because their current offensive rating is higher?

Over that four years, those Celtics/Lakers teams had average ORtgs in the 113-114 range without playing in a three-heavy era. That's a significantly better offense than the Glory Days Kings, so they would be harder to outgun.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

Over that four years, those Celtics/Lakers teams had average ORtgs in the 113-114 range without playing in a three-heavy era. That's a significantly better offense than the Glory Days Kings, so they would be harder to outgun.

Interesting then, that apparently "nobody" wants to try to pattern an offense on what those teams did....or at least incorporating a lot more of what made them successful. It's curious

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Interesting then, that apparently "nobody" wants to try to pattern an offense on what those teams did....or at least incorporating a lot more of what made them successful. It's curious

If you are going to be playing in a clay court tournament it would be foolish to try to optimize your hard court game.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

If you are going to be playing in a clay court tournament it would be foolish to try to optimize your hard court game.

Could the 1984-87 Celtics or Lakers win a title in this era?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Could the 1984-87 Celtics or Lakers win a title in this era?

Could they? Sure. Roger Federer won one French Open, you know.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

Could they? Sure. Roger Federer won one French Open, you know.

and Nadal's game translated well to all surfaces, along with being the best clay court player in history

 

[Capt. Factorial]

and Nadal's game translated well to all surfaces, along with being the best clay court player in history

So, if we don't reverse the metaphor, what you're saying is that today's Celtics would have a pretty good chance of winning championships in the 1980s. I agree.

 

[Elektrik]

I want to win now dammit! Enough already, I'm almost 40 man. Bad enough I'm a raiders fan

Lol! It could be worse, I’m on the back side of my sixties and a Cowboys fan.

 

[Turgenev]

I refuse to believe that there's only one style of basketball offense that can work anymore. If this is the new normal and teams have to shoot 40+ threes per game to stay competitive I'm going to strongly consider abandoning the NBA as a league I care about. At least until something changes. It took almost 30 years but MLB did eventually abandon the "all homers all the time" style of offense which started in the late 80s and bring back base stealing so there is hope. Something is going to have to change with the rules though because this shooting arms race is not course-correcting on its own.

It's not necessarily that a few teams shooting only threes is boring. We had D'Antoni style offenses for quite awhile and it was interesting seeing what happens when they faced off against a grind it out defensive minded team. It's that all 30 teams have committed to the same offense which makes this situation intolerable to me. When I watch basketball I want to see a chess match of mental strategy and physical skill not a shooting warmup drill performed with a shot clock and referees.

I generally agree with you (I think), in that I don't believe the opposition 3PM would be as big of an issue if we were making up for it somewhere else on the court.

I could only watch the first half of the Brooklyn and OKC games - but - aside from a few possessions - those teams got whatever they wanted. Letting them score 30+ in each quarter is Walton era defence. Brooklyn was especially frustrating in that they had one moderately talented guy who obviously wanted to take every shot, but their team had one turnover at the half.

On offence, what are we doing? We don't pass as much as the beam team, are near the bottom in assists and potential assists, don't seem to attack the rim that often, don't use Sabonis as a facilitator as much. Murray has been in a bit of a funk, which I am OK with because it happens, but asking him to create for himself off the dribble from the top of the key is not how I think he will break out of it.

Most concerning though is we don't look like we are having much fun. Maybe we are tired, injured, and in a bit of pain. And when we get a couple of wins the ball will move more and fall through the net more. Earlier this year we had the 5th best offence and maybe 11th best defence. We had a 10 game stretch where we were 7-3 with some close losses.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

So, if we don't reverse the metaphor, what you're saying is that today's Celtics would have a pretty good chance of winning championships in the 1980s. I agree.

I sure wouldn't bet on them against the 80's Lakers and Celtics

 

[Shaqfuey]

Huerter career shooting:
38.5%- 4.7 3PA
38%- 6.0 3PA
36.3%- 5.6 3PA
38.9%- 5.6 3PA
40.2%- 6.8 3PA
36.1%- 5.3 3PA

This season:
28.4%- 5.9 3PA

Keegan shooting:
41.1%- 6.3 3PA
35.8%- 6.6 3PA

This Season:
29.5%- 5.8 3PA

Monk is a bit of a different case because he really took a leap his last year in CHA after really struggling his first few seasons. So if we take those years once he truly became an NBA player:

40.1%--5.0 3PA
39.1%- 5.8 3PA
35.9%- 5.2 3PA
35.0%- 5.9 3PA

This season:
28.0%-- 4.5 3PA

Doug is well below is career average too, but he really doesn't matter as an end of bencher. But yeah, the above 3 all have historical precedent of being excellent shooters and are underperforming by at least 8% as a group. That's A LOT of points being left on the board. Especially if we consider the shot quality these guys mostly get.

Trey Lyles (Long-term role player, pretty swingy shooter year over year, but underperforming what he's done in a Kings uniform)
36.5%- 2.6 3PA
36.3%-- 3.2 3PA
38.4%-- 3.8 3PA

This Season:
33.3%--3.7 3PA

Should also be noted with Lyles his 2pt FG% has drastically dropped. In a Kings uni:

55.7%--4.8 2PA
59.5%--2.3 2PA
57.8%--1.8 2PA

This season:
44.0%-- 1.4 2PA

Huerter career shooting:
38.5%- 4.7 3PA
38%- 6.0 3PA
36.3%- 5.6 3PA
38.9%- 5.6 3PA
40.2%- 6.8 3PA
36.1%- 5.3 3PA

This season:
28.4%- 5.9 3PA

Keegan shooting:
41.1%- 6.3 3PA
35.8%- 6.6 3PA

This Season:
29.5%- 5.8 3PA

Monk is a bit of a different case because he really took a leap his last year in CHA after really struggling his first few seasons. So if we take those years once he truly became an NBA player:

40.1%--5.0 3PA
39.1%- 5.8 3PA
35.9%- 5.2 3PA
35.0%- 5.9 3PA

This season:
28.0%-- 4.5 3PA

Doug is well below is career average too, but he really doesn't matter as an end of bencher. But yeah, the above 3 all have historical precedent of being excellent shooters and are underperforming by at least 8% as a group. That's A LOT of points being left on the board. Especially if we consider the shot quality these guys mostly get.

Trey Lyles (Long-term role player, pretty swingy shooter year over year, but underperforming what he's done in a Kings uniform)
36.5%- 2.6 3PA
36.3%-- 3.2 3PA
38.4%-- 3.8 3PA

This Season:
33.3%--3.7 3PA

Should also be noted with Lyles his 2pt FG% has drastically dropped. In a Kings uni:

55.7%--4.8 2PA
59.5%--2.3 2PA
57.8%--1.8 2PA

This season:
44.0%-- 1.4 2PA

Thank you for taking the time to compile this - 38%+ is what I had in mind and a good comprehensive display historical v. this season.

 

[Shaqfuey]

34-36 is good, 37-39 is very good and 40 plus is elite imo.

Thanks for this. Helpful to remember.