3-point shooting

dude12

Hall of Famer
#1
Was responding to the Malone thread and how the flawed roster is lacking or rather still lacking 3-point shooting. Ben is over 40%, Gay and DWill at 36% but Collison is down to 30%, Stauskas 24%, Ray at 28%, Casspi a dismal 14%....Ramon 29%. We are bottom 3 in the league in 3 pointers made along with Minnesota and Charlote. Memphis is next at the bottom but they shoot at a nice clip and their roster is full of defensive studs in Conley, Allen, C Lee, Gasol, etc. Most of the teams at the top are big winners because they have an abundance of shooters.

We were able to win with Cousins despite the lack of 3 point shooting and now that he is gone, that aspect is killing this team.

Who is out there that PDA might acquire? Ramon has to go and replaced with a guy who can knock them down. Stauskas to date is not ready. Those 2 areas, backup PG and SG need immediate upgrades.

Having watched Detroit last night...maybe Meeks is a guy. Singler can shoot the crap out of the ball.
Joe Johnson is at 38% but probably can't make a deal because of his contract
Gary Neal is a possibility
Indiana has Stuckey only at 34% but he's better than Ramon...and CJ Watson hits over 40% and he would fit well here

Jose Calderon and Prigioni for the Knicks are both well over 40%. I'd love Calderon off the bench and would consider taking one of their contracts they are trying to dump in a deal.
 
#2
Roster composition is the first thing you should consider, before you look for potential answers around the league.
34-36 minutes are cemented at C, SF and probably PG, since most PGs with some combination of playmaking, defense and shooting are most likely unavailable for assets Kings can afford to spend. Starting SG provides shooting and defense, you can always do better, but the same sentiment as for PG, except this is a 22 y.o. hard-working, rapidly improving guy, so 30 minutes and a starting SG position should be considered taken as well. That leaves one spot in the starting lineup, that Kings currently use primarily for defense and some rebounding. Players, who can offer shooting on top of that are extremely rare and expensive. Do you want to sacrifice some defense/rebounding to get better shooting from starting PF spot? Given the positive effect of the starting lineup, despite only a training camp under their belt and some inconsistency to start the season from the only good shooter, I wouldn't do that.
So we closed in on Kings rather pathetic bench, that desperately needs defense, so if Kings were to acquire a backup center, shooting should probably be at the end of the wish list, since it's either/or type of situation as far as inexpensive big man go.
Backup PF? Here Kings have Landry and Evans, plus situational Williams/Casspi and very distant potential in Moreland. Any PF addition for shooting purposes only would need to be accompanied by Landry going out. Would Malone support getting rid of his only beloved post option from the bench?
Backup SF position seems to be taken by Williams/Casspi (would like the order to be reversed, but that's what Malone sees for now). Do you acquire someone to move ahead of those two on depth chart?
And now only guards left, with Ramon, Nik and Ray filling out bench as guards. Nik runs cold, a bit warm, then really cold. Do you get someone moving him to similar situation as Ray? Except Ray has at least some defensive role, so you're basically reducing Nik to true garbage time. Will Kings brass approve such a move? Two Rs at PG are barely making an impact, so 14-16 minutes at backup PG are realistically the only minutes you can plug more shooting into. Catch is shooting must be attached to at least some playmaking and, if possible, a pulse on D. Calderon hurts his team on D and has a huge contract for a backup. Prigioni would actually do reasonably well, but Sessions will have to be on his way out.
 

dude12

Hall of Famer
#3
Roster composition is the first thing you should consider, before you look for potential answers around the league.
34-36 minutes are cemented at C, SF and probably PG, since most PGs with some combination of playmaking, defense and shooting are most likely unavailable for assets Kings can afford to spend. Starting SG provides shooting and defense, you can always do better, but the same sentiment as for PG, except this is a 22 y.o. hard-working, rapidly improving guy, so 30 minutes and a starting SG position should be considered taken as well. That leaves one spot in the starting lineup, that Kings currently use primarily for defense and some rebounding. Players, who can offer shooting on top of that are extremely rare and expensive. Do you want to sacrifice some defense/rebounding to get better shooting from starting PF spot? Given the positive effect of the starting lineup, despite only a training camp under their belt and some inconsistency to start the season from the only good shooter, I wouldn't do that.
So we closed in on Kings rather pathetic bench, that desperately needs defense, so if Kings were to acquire a backup center, shooting should probably be at the end of the wish list, since it's either/or type of situation as far as inexpensive big man go.
Backup PF? Here Kings have Landry and Evans, plus situational Williams/Casspi and very distant potential in Moreland. Any PF addition for shooting purposes only would need to be accompanied by Landry going out. Would Malone support getting rid of his only beloved post option from the bench?
Backup SF position seems to be taken by Williams/Casspi (would like the order to be reversed, but that's what Malone sees for now). Do you acquire someone to move ahead of those two on depth chart?
And now only guards left, with Ramon, Nik and Ray filling out bench as guards. Nik runs cold, a bit warm, then really cold. Do you get someone moving him to similar situation as Ray? Except Ray has at least some defensive role, so you're basically reducing Nik to true garbage time. Will Kings brass approve such a move? Two Rs at PG are barely making an impact, so 14-16 minutes at backup PG are realistically the only minutes you can plug more shooting into. Catch is shooting must be attached to at least some playmaking and, if possible, a pulse on D. Calderon hurts his team on D and has a huge contract for a backup. Prigioni would actually do reasonably well, but Sessions will have to be on his way out.
If your looking at cheap options, then Prig is 1.6 with 2 yrs remaining and a guy like CJ Watson is 2M with a year remaining...vets who can play some defense or at least better defense than Sessions but why does either team trade those guys if its Ramon going back...there has to be some incentive.

I think there are players out there that could be had.
 
#4
The mindset that we desperately need trades is very poisonous to the new-born culture we see in the Kings. I hope you aren't thinking that trading is the best way to improve this team; development and chemistry both have lots of merit. Now that I addressed mindset, let's talk about possible trades and not-trades.

As of right now, the team's more reliable 3 point shooters include: McLemore, Gay. Teammates that are "getting there" include: Collison and Stauskas. Questionable options include: Williams, Casspi, McCallum, and Sessions. Do not trade: McLemore, Gay, Collison, Stauskas, McCallum. Possibly trade: Williams, Casspi, and Sessions. As of right now, I am on the fence on putting Williams in the "do not trade" category, mainly because he has recently shown consistent 3 point shooting. Who knows? Maybe it's a lucky streak. I'll have to see about 2 to 4 more games to determine whether or not he has attained 3 point consistency. If he is consistent, I would strongly urge the Kings FO to keep him. He's cut down on horrible decisions, too.

I am not on the fence of putting Casspi on the "do not trade" list. He has not shown consistency from the 3 point line, but I'll be fair: he hasn't tried to shoot 3 point shots a lot. He's a really good driver, more suited to a floor where the inside is clear. Given the Kings' power on the inside, I don't see Casspi meshing his amazing drives with a clogged inside. However, I can see that Cousins can spread the floor, giving room for Casspi to drive. That's why Casspi is so good at the fastbreak: his driving skills. Also, Casspi is a great teammate. If the Kings can spread the floor, which includes the Center, we may be able to give Casspi room to operate. The adaptability of the Kings' offense determines whether or not I see Casspi on the team for the long term.

Sessions has shown some semblance of shooting abilities, but his track record puts him below where I'd like our shooters to be. His drives, which are his supposed specialty, haven't been doing much, considering that the Kings tend to clog the middle. If we want to play to Sessions' strengths, we have to have our big men spread the floor. Otherwise, it would be wiser to acquire a better shooting PG or use McCallum. It would be ideal to trade Sessions to a team that wants to have a shooting big man, and in return, we get the big man that they don't want: a rebounding, shot-blocking specialist that lives in the paint. That would do well to both teams, and to Sessions' career. If we are willing spread our floor, maybe Sessions can thrive.
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#5
I'm trying to figure out why other teams can find three point shooters for cheap and the Kings struggle to get even one...a perfect example; Rasual Butler...he was the 15th man on the depth squad on the Wizards roster and he is a lights out shooter and now he is in their rotation every game. Another player is Gary Neal, Danny Green being waived and playing in the d-league, Teletovic, Bogdanovic, Draymond Green, Jordan Farmer, etc etc etc....
 

dude12

Hall of Famer
#6
The mindset that we desperately need trades is very poisonous to the new-born culture we see in the Kings. I hope you aren't thinking that trading is the best way to improve this team; development and chemistry both have lots of merit. Now that I addressed mindset, let's talk about possible trades and not-trades.

As of right now, the team's more reliable 3 point shooters include: McLemore, Gay. Teammates that are "getting there" include: Collison and Stauskas. Questionable options include: Williams, Casspi, McCallum, and Sessions. Do not trade: McLemore, Gay, Collison, Stauskas, McCallum. Possibly trade: Williams, Casspi, and Sessions. As of right now, I am on the fence on putting Williams in the "do not trade" category, mainly because he has recently shown consistent 3 point shooting. Who knows? Maybe it's a lucky streak. I'll have to see about 2 to 4 more games to determine whether or not he has attained 3 point consistency. If he is consistent, I would strongly urge the Kings FO to keep him. He's cut down on horrible decisions, too.

I am not on the fence of putting Casspi on the "do not trade" list. He has not shown consistency from the 3 point line, but I'll be fair: he hasn't tried to shoot 3 point shots a lot. He's a really good driver, more suited to a floor where the inside is clear. Given the Kings' power on the inside, I don't see Casspi meshing his amazing drives with a clogged inside. However, I can see that Cousins can spread the floor, giving room for Casspi to drive. That's why Casspi is so good at the fastbreak: his driving skills. Also, Casspi is a great teammate. If the Kings can spread the floor, which includes the Center, we may be able to give Casspi room to operate. The adaptability of the Kings' offense determines whether or not I see Casspi on the team for the long term.

Sessions has shown some semblance of shooting abilities, but his track record puts him below where I'd like our shooters to be. His drives, which are his supposed specialty, haven't been doing much, considering that the Kings tend to clog the middle. If we want to play to Sessions' strengths, we have to have our big men spread the floor. Otherwise, it would be wiser to acquire a better shooting PG or use McCallum. It would be ideal to trade Sessions to a team that wants to have a shooting big man, and in return, we get the big man that they don't want: a rebounding, shot-blocking specialist that lives in the paint. That would do well to both teams, and to Sessions' career. If we are willing spread our floor, maybe Sessions can thrive.
You get better by trading. You can wait 2-3 yrs for Stauskas to develop or you can make a deal to improve the bench now. Sessions is not all of the sudden going to get better from 3. This team's roster is flawed so you can't just say don't trade or its going to ruin the chemistry. I like Ray quite a bit but he's hardly in the don't trade category.

This team needs a quality backup big to Cuz, needs an upgrade off the bench at PG and SG and those guys need to knock down the 3. Our starting unit has proven over and over that its damn good. The bench sucks right now.
Our 3 point shooting sucks.
Spurs have these guys
Parker 60%
Green, Bellinelli, Bonner over 40% and P Mills when healthy knocks them down at a high rate
Ginobili is at 35%.....Diaw their stretch big shoots em at 30% and that is decent for a big

Yes, we need to add bench 3 point shooting.
 
#7
You get better by trading. You can wait 2-3 yrs for Stauskas to develop or you can make a deal to improve the bench now. Sessions is not all of the sudden going to get better from 3. This team's roster is flawed so you can't just say don't trade or its going to ruin the chemistry. I like Ray quite a bit but he's hardly in the don't trade category.

This team needs a quality backup big to Cuz, needs an upgrade off the bench at PG and SG and those guys need to knock down the 3. Our starting unit has proven over and over that its damn good. The bench sucks right now.
Our 3 point shooting sucks.
Spurs have these guys
Parker 60%
Green, Bellinelli, Bonner over 40% and P Mills when healthy knocks them down at a high rate
Ginobili is at 35%.....Diaw their stretch big shoots em at 30% and that is decent for a big

Yes, we need to add bench 3 point shooting.
Trading is a part of getting better, and so is development. We need to be cautious with both, depending on the situation. To get the best lineup, I'd recommend using Sessions, Casspi, Williams, and Hollins as trading chips, and leaving everyone else alone.

Sessions' and Casspi's skillsets thrive where the inside is not clogged. Given the post-up, banging-oriented approach of the Kings, the inside will most definitely be clogged by defenders. Unless if the Kings' offense can adapt to spread the floor with a center that can shoot from a reasonable range, I don't see Sessions and Casspi with the team in the long run. Another thing: I don't see Sessions improving his shot, since he has historically been an under-average shooter (in NBA standards); however, Casspi has shown signs of 3pt shooting competence in the past, and if he can show that same competence this year, it will be reasonable to keep him on the team in order to spread the floor on the inside. Williams claims that he practiced his 3pt shooting during the summer, and it certainly is paying off. Is it up to our standards? So far, yes. But it is questionable whether or not this 3pt streak will continue. Hollins is a good teammate, but we need a traditional center or a shooting 5, the latter in order to accommodate Sessions and Casspi. If we attain another Cousins, it is reasonable to trade Sessions and Casspi. If we attain a shooting 5, it would be reasonable to keep Sessions and Casspi. But if we get a shooting 5, in order to maximize floor spread, we would need a shooting 4, replacing Landry and Evans as part of the second unit, unless if Landry proves to be competent with the free throw-range shot. But if we attain a traditional center, we would need to trade Sessions and Casspi for a shooting 3 or 4.

The point is: trade the players whose skillsets do not match with the team's current system (Sessions, Casspi), and get players that have a fit skillset (3pt shooting). Ray, McLemore, Stauskas, Gay, and Collison are our current long-ballers, with Williams still needing to prove himself (personally, I'll give him time). Ideally, everyone would stay, and I'd like that to happen as much as possible since that would do well with chemistry, culture, and whatnot. But sometimes, some players' skillsets do not match with the system intended.