3 Guard Lineup & That 100 pt Barrier

[rainmaker]

I like stat threads as they clear up a fair amount of confusion. These are some pretty telling stats and bring up a few questions. This isn't meant to paint anyone in a bad light but to help honestly assess just what it is we're doing. Also, just so no one thinks I'm doing this at a convenient time to help fit an agenda I'm posting this before another rough stretch of games which will most likely be an extension of these stats.

Our 3 guard lineup
(IT/MT/Reke)

Games started together: 22
Record with all three starting:6-16
Opponents PPG in those games:108.4

A 6-16 record in that time equates to a (.273) winning %. I would have assumed the 3 guard lineup would have at least won at a higher % than the team under Westphal the past two seasons given we have considerably more talent.
3 Guard Lineup: (.273)
10-11 Season: (.293)
09-10 Season: (.305)

So with the 3 guard lineup we're winning at a worse rate than we did with a less talented team under Westphal. But now for a larger sample size, regarding defense and that magical 100 pt barrier.

Some share the opinion that us giving up more points doesn't really matter or hurt us much because we're scoring more ourselves. Score more, give up more, it should all be the same, right? If we're losing 112-107, and we slow it down than we'll just lose 97-92, right?

Larger sample size here, taking the entire season into account.

When opponent scores under 100
12-9

When opponent scores over 100
7-30

That kind of a difference makes my jaw drop. Say whatever you like about pace, scoring more, getting easier baskets playing a run and gun style, not having a good roster, what have you, but we are a completely different team when we hold the opponent under 100 pts.

Two things jump to my mind. One, we aren't even as good as we were under Westphal the last two seasons with a considerably less talented team and an injured Tyreke last year, with a three guard lineup. This pretty much shows a 3 guard lineup is not necessary at all, makes us less competitive, and I'm scratching my head wondering why we're sticking with it as it's less successful than anything we've done the past almost three seasons now.

Two, we MUST play better defense. The idea we're just playing at a faster pace and therefor the opponent will score more, but we'll still be just as competitive, if not more than if we slowed it down and put a more defensive oriented lineup on the floor is a fallacy. We are not a better team now, we're worse. Attempting to run and gun and outscore opponents is ruining this franchise at turning us into a joke.

And, as I said at the top, with OKC, Por, SA and OKC coming up, my guess is these stats will only look worse a week from now.

 

[Arkitect]

What has been incredibly frustrating about this season is that we should be much better than we should be talent wise. Reke healed, we got Thornton at the end of last season, and DMC was in his 2nd year so he should be developing into a solid player. That is 60 ppg right there. With a solid defense, you only need 5 guys averaging 6-8 PPG to be competitive. Half the league averages more than 8ppg. Instead, we got 3 (Salmons, Hickson, Jimmer) scorers. 3!!! How did anyone think this would work? The advantage of having Reke, Thornton, and DMC on the team is that you don't need scorers. You already have them. Then IT turned into 4. That gives us 7 players who think offense first by nature. In a league where most teams play 8 - 9 guys a night. Then we go and sign an "assistant" coach in Smart who just got fired in GS. With everyone knowing that he was clearly going to be the coach if Westphal got off to a rough start. We effectively hired Smart as a head coach without going through the process of even looking at anyone else. I don't know how you add a player of DMC's caliber and then get worse every year. How is that possible? I have been shaking my head at every move we have made since the end of last season. Every decision has been terrible. But I was optimistic because I thought we couldn't get worse with players like Reke, Thornton, and DMC. I was so wrong. Somehow our FO managed to actually make that combo worse than each would be individually. Reke won 25 games by himself his first year in the league. We are probably going to finish this year with a lower percentage than his rookie year for the 2nd year in a row.

 

[Tyndel]

And we were also doing better work in the harder part of our schedule. I remember when we were talking about the last half the season being a breeze.... Well there is something in the air at any rate.

 

[Glenn]

You don't simply add points scored in any given game by adding more point scorers. There is a limit as to how many points can be scored in any given game. There is only one basketball. Lets us say hypothetically that a great scoring team can score a maximum of 120 pts per game. If you don't like that number, pick another. At present we start 4 players capable of scoring 20 pts per game; IT, MT, Tyreke, and DMC. That does not mean they all will score 20 points each game becasue as one player scores, others are deprived of scoring. Heck, yesterday or the day before it was pointed out that no one was passing Tyreke the ball. That is what you give up when there are too many scorers on the floor; a few cannot score to their potential because others are taking their shots. It is inefficient.

Now, as our team seems to have no scorers on the bench, why not take a scorer or two from the starting group and put them on the bench? With this set up, the two great scorers with the starters might very well be able to score 20 points apiece as they can fire away without worrying about denying the other great scorers shots. When the bench group comes in, it has two guys able to score 20 points apiece and they can fire away also.

This is overly simplistic I suppose but is only presented to show why adding acorers doesn't necessarily increase wins. It depends on how they are used. The starters would have two players scoring 20 pts apiece and the bench would have two players scoring 20 pts apiece. As a team, these 4 players would be able to score 80 points without denying anyone a shot. If they were all starters, there is no way they could all score 20 pts a game or 80 pts as a group. Dividing them into two groups means the other 6 players would contribute 40 pts to get a 120 pot game. This doesn't seem too much to ask.

Then let us say the non-scorers were actually good at defense and could hold down the opponents scoring. That further maximizes the efficiency of the team. Instead of having one defender on the starters, there would be three. Instead of 5 defenders on the bench there would be three.

I'm too tired to make any more sense of this. It makes sense to me. It explains why starting IT, MT, Tyreke, and Cuz does not end up with more wins. At least to me it does. There are all kinds of nit picky holes that could be punched into my argument so fire away.

 

[Glenn]

And we were also doing better work in the harder part of our schedule. I remember when we were talking about the last half the season being a breeze.... Well there is something in the air at any rate.

I think this latter part of the season is when Tyreke was switched to SF. IT became a full time starter. I'm not blaming IT because he is a good talent. I am blaming how he and Tyreke are used.

 

[K F Jay]

The last 10 teams that won the championship had a combined average of 99.11ppg allowing 92.59ppg. According to those stats you don't even have to average 100ppg to win it all.

If we take out the (3)Spurs, (1)Pistons and (1)Celtics championship years and only use the (3)Lakers, (1)Heat and (1)Mavericks the combined averge is 102ppg allowing 96.48ppg.

Just to put things in perspective we currently allow 104.1ppg in 30th place aka last.

 

[ppine]

This forum has some really good number crunchers. It is a useful exercise to look at stats to get the big picture. A lot of fans underestimate the emotional aspect of the game, which some people don't seem to agree with. Look at JJ Hickson back in Portland and playing great. As one of the youngest teams in the NBA, led by a 21 year old, the Kings are more susceptible to emotional meltdowns than most teams. It is a big part of coaching to work on mental, emotional and the human part of the game. Coaches work hard to earn respect, which they can easily lose. Benching Cousins did not lose any respect among his players.

In about 15-20 games this year, the Kings played well enough to win, but did not have the mental toughness required. That takes experience and strong leadership. Smart and Thomas are good leaders. Cousins needs to improve his ability to lead what is turning into his team. Those of you that like to scream and jump up and down are free to do that. Please show some respect for the game.

 

[Spike]

The last 10 teams that won the championship had a combined average of 99.11ppg allowing 92.59ppg. According to those stats you don't even have to average 100ppg to win it all.

If we take out the (3)Spurs, (1)Pistons and (1)Celtics championship years and only use the (3)Lakers, (1)Heat and (1)Mavericks the combined averge is 102ppg allowing 96.48ppg.


Just to put things in perspective we currently allow 104.1ppg in 30th place aka last.

Ultimately, I think this is the bigger picture. This lineup cannot win in neither the short-term or the long-term. Especially now that the book is written on how to defend us. Going "small" was a neat wrinkle at certain moments in a game, and it can catch teams off guard. They find themselves trying to adjust on the fly and it led to us being able to close out some games. We didn't have to worry (too much) about the loss of rebounding because we were using it for a specific situation - you could ride out its inefficiencies for a short period of time.

When Smart decided to employ small ball full time it became much easier to defend us. In fact, we probably did a good job of stopping ourselves by giving players new roles and responsibilities mid-season. Who knows, maybe Hickson called him out on it and that's why he was shipped out. Anyway, with a three guard rotation now the norm, Smart would occasionally go to a 4 guard lineup. Absolute lunacy on the offensive and defensive end, because all you're hoping for is a steal on the defensive side, and a quick hoop on the other side before the defense sets up.

Defensively, all teams have to do is beat us in transition and make us employ a halfcourt game. Unfortunately, we went away from set plays and structure the minute we went to smallball. We took the ball out of Evans's hands and neutralized his talents (trust me, this relates to our defensive woes). When was the last time we consistently run plays through Cousins, besides the first offensive possession of the game where Cousins pops from the top of the key? Anyway, back to defense. A structured half court offense will allow for players to:
1. Catch their breath on the offensive side after working on defense.
2. Allow for a more logical transition to defense, because they'll know when a shot is supposed to happen, and there will be less guessing, allowing for a better sense of getting back on time.

We're always caught in a sprint in one direction or the other, and it's easy to get lost. A young team needs structure on both ends.

You can't expect a group of players who are undersized at 3, sometimes 4, and when Hayes is your lone post, 5 positions to stop anyone defensively. It's not just about height, but arm length and reach that also come into play relative to their opposition. Small ball will not work unless we start finding 6'5" players or smaller who can scratch their ankles without having to bend over.

It's not about inexperience, it's not about youth. It's about putting your players in a position to succeed. We have not done that this year.

 

[rainmaker]

Update:

Our 3 guard lineup
(IT/MT/Reke)

Games started together: 25
Record with all three starting:7-18
Opponents PPG in those games:109.3


Comparative winning %

3 Guard Lineup: (.280)
10-11 Season: (.293)
09-10 Season: (.305)

Again, worse than with Reke a point, under Westy, with a considerably less talented team. But Westy did at least use more conventional lineups...


Larger sample size here, taking the entire season into account.

When opponent scores under 100
12-9

When opponent scores over 100
8-32

Small ball, idiot ball, whatever you want to call it, is simply not an improvement, and we're actually worse using it than we were under Westy with far less talent. Not sure some grasp that. We're now almost to the end of a season, the majority of which is sending us in the opposite direction we should be heading, and using opposing styles to that which win in this league and have for decades, while wasting another year of development for many of our youngsters.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I understand where you're going, but don't think it is as cut and dry as one would think. 100 is an arbitrary number. How much do the W's / L's change if you change the variable to 101, 102, 103, etc points?

Secondly, perhaps they're losing these games when the opponent scores over 100 because those also happen to be the games when the Kings don't shoot particularly well, aren't sharing the ball, or are just terrible all-around on the offensive end. It may not boil down to just playing defense with the sole goal of holding the opponent to under 100 because the stats say you'll win. Perhaps playing better on the offensive end in those games can make as much or more of a difference? Good offense often contributes to good defense since the opponent isn't getting out in transition as much thus exposing one of the Kings more pronounced deficiencies.

All in all, I think we all realize that the Kings must get better on the defensive end. That said, we also know that, with the current cast, they aren't likely to ever be more than an average team defensively thus improving ball movement, shot selection, and shooting may be best way to win games, regardless if the opponent scores over/under 100.

 

[Bricklayer]

I understand where you're going, but don't think it is as cut and dry as one would think. 100 is an arbitrary number. How much do the W's / L's change if you change the variable to 101, 102, 103, etc points?

Secondly, perhaps they're losing these games when the opponent scores over 100 because those also happen to be the games when the Kings don't shoot particularly well, aren't sharing the ball, or are just terrible all-around on the offensive end. It may not boil down to just playing defense with the sole goal of holding the opponent to under 100 because the stats say you'll win. Perhaps playing better on the offensive end in those games can make as much or more of a difference? Good offense often contributes to good defense since the opponent isn't getting out in transition as much thus exposing one of the Kings more pronounced deficiencies.

All in all, I think we all realize that the Kings must get better on the defensive end. That said, we also know that, with the current cast, they aren't likely to ever be more than an average team defensively thus improving ball movement, shot selection, and shooting may be best way to win games, regardless if the opponent scores over/under 100.

How about this:

Ignoring the first 7 games under Westphal, which were a mess and had the coach openly feuding with our best player, records under Keith Smart:

Reke at PG (games 8-29):
Record: 8-14 (.364)
Home Games: 8
Away Games: 14
Opponent Combined Record: 706-669 .514
Times burdened with the stinky fish as a starter: 22

IT at PG (games 30-62):
Record: 10-23 (.303)
Home Games: 19
Away Games: 14
Opponent Combined Record: 986-1016 .493
Times burdened with the stinky fish as a starter: 2

I would like to suggest, THIS IS NOT PROGRESS. This is in fact stupid.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

How about this:

Ignoring the first 7 games under Westphal, which were a mess and had the coach openly feuding with our best player, records under Keith Smart:

Reke at PG (games 8-29):
Record: 8-14 (.364)
Home Games: 8
Away Games: 14
Opponent Combined Record: 706-669 .514
Times burdened with the stinky fish as a starter: 22

IT at PG (games 30-62):
Record: 10-23 (.303)
Home Games: 19
Away Games: 14
Opponent Combined Record: 986-1016 .493
Times burdened with the stinky fish as a starter: 2

I would like to suggest, THIS IS NOT PROGRESS. This is in fact stupid.

thanks for laying it out in numbers. i totally forgot the fish was starting

 

[CruzDude]

The GLENN reply above makes a good point that more scoring does not wins make, especially if the main 4 scorers all start. All teams that make it through the second round and through to the finals do so with defense. The big two problems in defending by the Kings are The Perimeter and The Middle. The biggest glaring weakness to me is the lack of rotating by the front court (the 3, 4, and 5) when the other team drives. Nearly equal in weakness is the ability to defend the perimeter and part of that is the lack of defending the middle. The back court tries to do a bit of both and doesn't really do either particularily well.

That allows teams that are good jump shooters to have too much fun and score big time. Then if they want to drive the bigs seem more into Torero bull-fighting style. One the one hand I love JT and Cuz but not their defense. Same for Hayes who can move most bigs out of the middle but as a 6-6 center with no hops is not a threat to stop the drives.

Just my view but from the replies above seems to echoe what others are saying before me.