4 Random Kings Stats For a Day Off

Bricklayer

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Part 1 -- We Might Not Be That Bad
The Kings started the season 1-7. The Kings responded to Cuz's 56pt night in the most ridiculous fashion possible, going 1-8 in the next 9 games,. Outside of those two ugly streaks when we've gone a combined 2-15, the Kings have gone 21-16 .568, which would be a 47 win pace. Should the Kings resume playing at a .568 pace the rest of the way they would go 16-12 in the final 28 games, and finish the season 39-43, which would be the most wins since Rick Adelman left, and tied for the most wins ever by a non-Adelman coach.

Part II -- Speaking of Cousins...
DeMarcus Cousins is having one of the most prolific scoring seasons in the history of big men. His 28.3 pts per 36min is the best in 21 years for a big man, its 10th all time amongst big man seasons, and its 2nd in the last 40 years to only 1994-95 Shaq who averaged 28.5 per36.
1) 37.3 Wilt '61-62
2) 33.9 Wilt '62-63
3) 29.2 Wilt '59-60
4) 28.9 Wilt '60-61
5) 28.8 Wilt '63-64
6) 28.8 McAdoo '74-75
7) 28.5 Shaq '94-95
8) 28.4 Kareem '71-72
9) 28.4 Kareem '70-71
10) 28.3 Cousins '15-16

All 4 men above him on the list won MVPs.

Part III -- Rondo Joining All Time Passers
Rajon Rondo is going to win the assist title again (it will be his 3rd) in a blowout and become Sacramento's first assist king. He's currently averaging 11.9 assists a game, second place Russel Westbrook is averaging 10.2. Rondo's 11.9 is the most assists per game since John Stockton in 1994-95 21 years ago, and if it holds, he will become only the 3rd man in NBA history (Magic, Stockton, Rondo) to have multiple seasons of 11.5 or more assists. Rondo is currently 9th all time in assists per game:
1) Magic 11.2
2) Stockton 10.5
3) Paul 9.9
4) Robertson 9.5
5) IThomas 9.3
6) KJohnson 9.1
7) Wall 8.8
8) Kidd 8.7
9) Rondo 8.6
10) Nash 8.5

Part IV -- Effense
In the 10 years since Rick Adelman was fired by the Maloofs, ostensibly for not playing enough defense, we have never finished above 19th in any major defensive category, and our franchise/two sets of doofy owners fascination with pace means we've never finished better than 24th in Pts Allowed, in most years almost forcing us to have a Top 5 offense just to reach .500.

Seas / Opp FG% / Opp Points / DRTG
15-16 .460 20th / 109.1 30th / 108.0 22nd
14-15 .456 19th / 105.0 27th / 109.2 27th
13-14 .461 19th / 103.4 24th / 108.8 23rd
12-13 .472 28th / 105.1 30th / 111.4 29th
11-12 .476 30th / 104.4 30th / 109.8 29th
10-11 .478 28th / 104.7 25th / 109.0 19th
09-10 .469 19th / 104.4 25th / 109.9 19th
08-09 .483 30th / 109.3 29th / 114.7 30th
07-08 .466 22nd / 104.8 24th / 109.9 25th
06-07 .472 26th / 103.1 24th / 108.0 22nd

05-06 .454 14th / 97.3 16th / 105.0 11th -- Last Adelman Year
 
I don't think 39-43 gets us to the playoffs, even this year. We definitely need to do better than 16-12 in the last third of our schedule. Didn't know that about Rondo, that's impressive company for sure.
 
Here's a stat. Sacramento is on a 9 year playoff drought tied for the longest in team history, Second only to the Minnesota Timberwolves whom's last appearance was in 2004 when Kevin Garnett was League MVP.
 
Larry89 said:
Here's a stat. Sacramento is on a 9 year playoff drought tied for the longest in team history, Second only to the Minnesota Timberwolves whom's last appearance was in 2004 when Kevin Garnett was League MVP.
Click to expand...


I think that the sources of that stat were largely covered in Part IV :)
 
Bricklayer said:
Part IV -- Effense
In the 10 years since Rick Adelman was fired by the Maloofs, ostensibly for not playing enough defense, we have never finished above 19th in any major defensive category, and our franchise/two sets of doofy owners fascination with pace means we've never finished better than 24th in Pts Allowed, in most years almost forcing us to have a Top 5 offense just to reach .500.

Seas / Opp FG% / Opp Points / DRTG
15-16 .460 20th / 109.1 30th / 108.0 22nd
14-15 .456 19th / 105.0 27th / 109.2 27th
13-14 .461 19th / 103.4 24th / 108.8 23rd
12-13 .472 28th / 105.1 30th / 111.4 29th
11-12 .476 30th / 104.4 30th / 109.8 29th
10-11 .478 28th / 104.7 25th / 109.0 19th
09-10 .469 19th / 104.4 25th / 109.9 19th
08-09 .483 30th / 109.3 29th / 114.7 30th
07-08 .466 22nd / 104.8 24th / 109.9 25th
06-07 .472 26th / 103.1 24th / 108.0 22nd

05-06 .454 14th / 97.3 16th / 105.0 11th -- Last Adelman Year
Click to expand...

The point (of our defense being bad for a decade) is well taken. However I'd like to take this moment to argue vehemently against the use of Opponent Points Per Game as a serious defensive measure. Because Opponent Points Per Game doesn't take into account the number of possessions per game it turns out to be almost equally correlated with pace (r-squared = 0.74) as it is with a better stat like DRTG (r-squared = 0.76) over the past five years. The short take home version is that Opponent Points Per Game is as equally influenced by how fast a team plays (not a measure of defense) as it is by actual defensive results. You wouldn't argue that college teams play better all around defense because the teams usually score in the 70s; college scores are in the 70s largely because the games is 8 minutes shorter and the shot clock is longer - there are fewer possessions. (Sure, college offenses are probably inferior as well, but the illustration is still apt.)

Not surprisingly, Opponent FG% and DRTG are much more tightly correlated (r-squared of 0.88), but Opponent FG% misses a few things (threes, FTs) that DRTG incorporates, so as an overall defensive stat DRTG is better.

So yes, our defense has been bad for a decade, but let's all use that third column when measuring it! :)
 
Capt. Factorial said:
The point (of our defense being bad for a decade) is well taken. However I'd like to take this moment to argue vehemently against the use of Opponent Points Per Game as a serious defensive measure. Because Opponent Points Per Game doesn't take into account the number of possessions per game it turns out to be almost equally correlated with pace (r-squared = 0.74) as it is with a better stat like DRTG (r-squared = 0.76) over the past five years. The short take home version is that Opponent Points Per Game is as equally influenced by how fast a team plays (not a measure of defense) as it is by actual defensive results. You wouldn't argue that college teams play better all around defense because the teams usually score in the 70s; college scores are in the 70s largely because the games is 8 minutes shorter and the shot clock is longer - there are fewer possessions. (Sure, college offenses are probably inferior as well, but the illustration is still apt.)

Not surprisingly, Opponent FG% and DRTG are much more tightly correlated (r-squared of 0.88), but Opponent FG% misses a few things (threes, FTs) that DRTG incorporates, so as an overall defensive stat DRTG is better.

So yes, our defense has been bad for a decade, but let's all use that third column when measuring it! :)
Click to expand...

The counter argument is that while the third column is cute, in the end its just a metric. In the end its the second one that you have to directly overcome. You allow the other team to score 109, then it doesn't matter how that happened, you still have to score 110(!) to beat it.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
The point (of our defense being bad for a decade) is well taken. However I'd like to take this moment to argue vehemently against the use of Opponent Points Per Game as a serious defensive measure. Because Opponent Points Per Game doesn't take into account the number of possessions per game it turns out to be almost equally correlated with pace (r-squared = 0.74) as it is with a better stat like DRTG (r-squared = 0.76) over the past five years. The short take home version is that Opponent Points Per Game is as equally influenced by how fast a team plays (not a measure of defense) as it is by actual defensive results. You wouldn't argue that college teams play better all around defense because the teams usually score in the 70s; college scores are in the 70s largely because the games is 8 minutes shorter and the shot clock is longer - there are fewer possessions. (Sure, college offenses are probably inferior as well, but the illustration is still apt.)

Not surprisingly, Opponent FG% and DRTG are much more tightly correlated (r-squared of 0.88), but Opponent FG% misses a few things (threes, FTs) that DRTG incorporates, so as an overall defensive stat DRTG is better.

So yes, our defense has been bad for a decade, but let's all use that third column when measuring it! :)
Click to expand...

Yep, I've been preaching that for some time. Pace figures into both points scored by us as well as points allowed by us. Faster pace equals more possessions, which equals more shots, which equals higher scores. So you may be scoring more points, and using that as a barometer to show that you have no problem scoring the ball, but in fact, you may not be very efficient. I think the Kings are around the middle of the league in offensive efficiency. The same principle holds true for defense. You have to dig a little deeper into the weeds. However one thing always holds true, and that's your point differential. If the other team on average is scoring more points than you are, your going to lose. We currently have a defensive ratting of 108.0 (not very good) and an offensive ratting of 106.2. We need to reverse those two numbers if were going to win games.

As an example the Warriors have an offensive ratting of 114.5 and a defensive ratting of 103.1. That's an 11 point difference in their favor. Were a long way from competing with them in a series. The Spurs have an offensive ratting of 111.4 and a defensive ratting of 98.2. Ditto the Spurs. The teams were trying to catch, or beat out for the eighth spot, Houston, Portland, and Utah, all have around a one point advantage defensively. For example, Utah has a defensive ratting of 105.0 and an offensive ratting of 106.4. That makes them more beatable than the Warriors, but the odds are still in their favor.
 
Bricklayer said:
The counter argument is that while the third column is cute, in the end its just a metric. In the end its the second one that you have to directly overcome. You allow the other team to score 109, then it doesn't matter how that happened, you still have to score 110(!) to beat it.
Click to expand...

The counter argument to the counter argument is that if your opponent scores 109 because they had ten more possessions per game due to a higher pace, then your team also has an additional ten possessions to get to 110. The playing field is even, so to speak, and what is truly important is points per possession - which is what ORTG and DRTG measure.
 
even though those Rondo numbers are inflated due to Karl's playing style, it's still cool to see him dishing his way to one last big pay day.
 
The first bad stint was understandable, tough opponents, a lot of new pieces. The second bad stint has no explanation other than you can smell the politics and in fighting that was going on, sadly that buried us and we all but need a miracle to make the playoffs given how well teams above us have been playing. Basically the team as a whole, all parties chose ego's over winning.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
The counter argument to the counter argument is that if your opponent scores 109 because they had ten more possessions per game due to a higher pace, then your team also has an additional ten possessions to get to 110. The playing field is even, so to speak, and what is truly important is points per possession - which is what ORTG and DRTG measure.
Click to expand...

So would you say a possible interpretation is that one of the reasons for our giving up so many points (possessions/pace) also accounts for Cousins' high scoring?
 
Not buying part I at all in particular when 3 or 4 of our key competitor's for the playoffs have been ravaged by injury and a very decent amount of our wins came against depleted teams and we also lost a good chunk of games to depleted teams. I actually think our record is inflated.
 
Isn't it just more effective to try and stop the other team from scoring on every possession and try and outscore them that way than just trying to increase pace and outscore them that way? Increased pace works with some teams who have the correct personnel but this isn't one of them.
 
mac said:
So would you say a possible interpretation is that one of the reasons for our giving up so many points (possessions/pace) also accounts for Cousins' high scoring?
Click to expand...

Naturally possessions/pace is a factor in per-game scoring. We play at about 4 possessions per team per game faster than league average, so with Cousins at a usage rate of a bit over 35%, you're talking one to two extra shots per game relative to league average pace. Cousins is at 27 PPG right now, if we played a league average pace he might drop down to about 25 PPG - it's not like he would suddenly be down in the 18 range or anything.
 
dude12 said:
Isn't it just more effective to try and stop the other team from scoring on every possession and try and outscore them that way than just trying to increase pace and outscore them that way? Increased pace works with some teams who have the correct personnel but this isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

This argument is brought up all the time. But we have 2 Pg's, that are great in the open floor, a lightning quick SG, an athletic SF, who can play above the rim and the quickest PF/C this league has seen in a while. KK has played in an uptempo system. Acy is great at running the floor and Casspi is actually lethal in transition. And even if DMC is a big guy, his trailing 3's and early pindowns after he ran the floor work pretty well and he is always a threat, when he attacks other big man with momentum from the outside.
Now what we don't have is a sufficient half court offense - we lack spacing, IQ, awareness, proper communication (how often Cuz runs into a double team?) and ball handling and viable plays outside of dumping the ball to Cuz or Gay, this stupid Marco coming off screens and Rondo trying to play a two man game. And we are completely helpless, when Cousins doesn't dominate his matchup, which is always a bad sign.

Now of course the lack of ball handling will hurt you, when playing fast, but since our only guy able to run a pick&roll is Rondo and to a much lesse degree DC (heck Cousins might be better as a ballhandler in the pick&roll than Ben or Gay....) the lack of ball handling will hurt us in the half court too.

What hurts us is defense. Ok I get the argument, that Cousins isn't great when running back on D, but the question is, if this will change, when we slow things down, since most of the time Cousins is trailing the play, when we run. The problem with Cousins not running back in time come up, when he drives and throws up a shot through contact. His momentum carries him directly underneath the basket or he ends on the floor and from there it's an uphill battle to catch the opposing big (and every center in the league, that tries to score will give up a few baskets like this).
And in general we do a terrible job picking up favorable matchups in transition and we hurry too much on the offensive end, throwing passes, that are not there, force drives or take bad shots.

But this has nothing to do with pace. the key to a fast paced playstyle is to play fast but never play in a hurry.

The idea of making this Kings team as currently assembled a fast paced team is not bad. The problem is the execution and the terrible defense and this is on both - players AND coaches.
 
You can't just discount the losing streaks as you did in Part I. Every team in the league could do the same thing (except for GSW who don't have losing streaks). The fact of the matter is those losing streaks are part of the makeup of this team right now. Sure, we all get excited when we win a few but, inevitably, we always fall back into crapville.
I think our record is fairly accurate for what we are right now.
 
mac said:
So would you say a possible interpretation is that one of the reasons for our giving up so many points (possessions/pace) also accounts for Cousins' high scoring?
Click to expand...

People still don't get pts/100 possessions very well, otherwise I could have used them.

Limitation: we only have them calculated back to '73-74

So, since 1973-74, 42 years ago, Cuz's 37.7pts/100 possessions is 11th all time amongst bigs. And to a significant degree he's basically just behind Shaq. Shaq had 8 of the 11 more prolific seasons, then Admiral had 1 -- his '93-94 season when he dropped/was fed 71 on the final day of the season to win a scoring crown over Shaq. And then there are two that wouldn't officially count -- 1 48 game half season from Yao Ming, and 1 44 half season from Jermaine O'Neal. If you make it a more normal 50 game cutoff (albeit not fair to guys in the 50gm '99 strike season), then its tied for 8th all time with only Shaq and that one Admiral season above it.

All Time (since '73-74) Big Man Per 100 Possession Scoring Seasons
1) 40.1 Shaq 97-98
2) 40.0 Shaq 94-95
3) 39.6 Shaq 98-99 (49gms, but 49 of 50 (strike year))
4) 39.2 Yao 06-07 (48 gms)
5) 39.2 Shaq 01-02
6) 39.2 Admiral 93-94
7) 38.5 Shaq 95-96 (54gms)
8) 38.4 Jermaine 04-05 (44gms, brawl year)
9) 38.1 Shaq 99-00
10) 38.0 Shaq 00-01
11) 37.7 Cousins 15-16 (45gms thus far)
12) 37.7 Shaq 02-03


Amare peak was 36.9 (#16)
Moses peak was 36.6 (#17)
Ewing peak was 36.2 (#19)
Hakeem peak was 35.8 (#21)
Cousins also has the #22 and #26 seasons on the list with 35.7 and 35.5 the last two years
McAdoo's peak was 35.6 (#23)
Davis's peak is 35.4 (#27)
Chambers peak was 34.5 (#32)
Webber's peak was 34.0 (#39)
Duncan's peak was 33.5 (#45)
Zo's peak was 33.5 (#46)
Kareem's peak would have come before '73-74, after it was 33.4
Issel's peak was 32.8
 
  • Like
Reactions: mac
Honestly after last season if you told me kings would go 39-43 I would have taken it. Teams don't often go from bottom of the league to playoffs the following season but +10 wins is a step in the right direction. I think picking up rondo and ownership's playoffs or bust mentality brought our hopes up.
 
steelevt said:
Honestly after last season if you told me kings would go 39-43 I would have taken it. Teams don't often go from bottom of the league to playoffs the following season but +10 wins is a step in the right direction. I think picking up rondo and ownership's playoffs or bust mentality brought our hopes up.
Click to expand...

Usually when teams make this kind of jump to +10 wins it's because their young players are getting more seasoned. After making this jump they usually have a lot more potential for further growth. I would expect this for the Timberwolves or Blazers next season. We on the other hand have close to zero growth potential. Cousins is already dominant. WCS is a defensive role player, who shows very little on offense and Ben is most likely gone, after the season.
We are a veteran team with basically close to nowhere to go, unless we manage to sign good FA's.
 
KingsFanGER said:
Usually when teams make this kind of jump to +10 wins it's because their young players are getting more seasoned. After making this jump they usually have a lot more potential for further growth. I would expect this for the Timberwolves or Blazers next season. We on the other hand have close to zero growth potential. Cousins is already dominant. WCS is a defensive role player, who shows very little on offense and Ben is most likely gone, after the season.
We are a veteran team with basically close to nowhere to go, unless we manage to sign good FA's.
Click to expand...
We also are not a team full of old vets at the end of their prime. Like brick said aside from those 2 bad streaks we were on pace to win 47 games. This is a team that has no consistent lineup year to year. I'm not saying 39 games is a given. We might not even get that. But I'm at a point where we need to accept ego we have and build chemistry and not continue to get young players/draft picks with potential. Chemistry is underrated in a league where you just put together some superstars and can win it all. You might think we have no where to go but I think we can go up if this team plays together the way they are capable of. Just based on trends if we continue at this pace hypothetically im fine with 29 wins > 39 wins > 47 wins
 
Iced Espresso said:
I don't think I know any of those songs, I guess I've been out of the "loop" longer than the Kings.
Click to expand...

Ah, the good ole days: :p

1969-june-10-elvis-tom-jones-408.jpg
 
Bricklayer said:
People still don't get pts/100 possessions very well, otherwise I could have used them.

Limitation: we only have them calculated back to '73-74

So, since 1973-74, 42 years ago, Cuz's 37.7pts/100 possessions is 11th all time amongst bigs. And to a significant degree he's basically just behind Shaq. Shaq had 8 of the 11 more prolific seasons, then Admiral had 1 -- his '93-94 season when he dropped/was fed 71 on the final day of the season to win a scoring crown over Shaq. And then there are two that wouldn't officially count -- 1 48 game half season from Yao Ming, and 1 44 half season from Jermaine O'Neal. If you make it a more normal 50 game cutoff (albeit not fair to guys in the 50gm '99 strike season), then its tied for 8th all time with only Shaq and that one Admiral season above it.

All Time (since '73-74) Big Man Per 100 Possession Scoring Seasons
1) 40.1 Shaq 97-98
2) 40.0 Shaq 94-95
3) 39.6 Shaq 98-99 (49gms, but 49 of 50 (strike year))
4) 39.2 Yao 06-07 (48 gms)
5) 39.2 Shaq 01-02
6) 39.2 Admiral 93-94
7) 38.5 Shaq 95-96 (54gms)
8) 38.4 Jermaine 04-05 (44gms, brawl year)
9) 38.1 Shaq 99-00
10) 38.0 Shaq 00-01
11) 37.7 Cousins 15-16 (45gms thus far)
12) 37.7 Shaq 02-03


Amare peak was 36.9 (#16)
Moses peak was 36.6 (#17)
Ewing peak was 36.2 (#19)
Hakeem peak was 35.8 (#21)
Cousins also has the #22 and #26 seasons on the list with 35.7 and 35.5 the last two years
McAdoo's peak was 35.6 (#23)
Davis's peak is 35.4 (#27)
Chambers peak was 34.5 (#32)
Webber's peak was 34.0 (#39)
Duncan's peak was 33.5 (#45)
Zo's peak was 33.5 (#46)
Kareem's peak would have come before '73-74, after it was 33.4
Issel's peak was 32.8
Click to expand...
If you look at this list and try to figure out what's wrong with cousins that he's on this list but can't win 30games what pops out is the ts%. You gotta go all the way down to Weber's best year to find a lower ts%.

As an aside, curry is having an all time great year... 8th highest pts per 100 in the db with far and away the highest ts% at .676. Unbelievable
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bricklayer
Month by Month Defense and Offense Stats
Replies
6
Views
826
Bricklayer
Bricklayer
Bricklayer
The Stubborn Refusal to Address Defense in the Sacto Era
3 4 5
Replies
143
Views
17K
VF21
VF21
Bricklayer
The Sacramento Kings, The Franchise That Doesn't Do Defense
Replies
16
Views
1K
bajaden
bajaden
Bricklayer
A Stat Thread: Numbers Thus Far
Replies
26
Views
2K
Capt. Factorial
Capt. Factorial
SacKings7
Auditing the Kings 09-10 Season
Replies
0
Views
1K
SacKings7
SacKings7