[Game] 41/82 Kings vs. Rockets 16 JAN 2025, 7pm PT/10pm ET

Status
Not open for further replies.
sactowndog said:
Part of it but Ellis was starting most of it
Click to expand...

Fox played the first 3 games of that winning streak. So, Fox-Monk/ (Keon started for injured Keegan in Grizz game.. gave up 133)

117.6 ORtg
109.3 DRtg

Then Monk-Keon for the next 3 games:

115.8 ORtg
100.3 DRtg

Then as you said the D rtg the last 3 games, with missing 1 Monk game and Keon gets hurt. But, 121.6 ORtg over the last 3 games too

What's all this mean? Honestly, probably nothing because we're just picking random 3-game samples with a variety of different guys hurt and out of the lineup. But you put all 9 of those games together under the Christie era and after that Laker game:

8-1

118.3 ORtg (4th)
110.5 DRtg (9th)
+7.8 Net Rtg (4th)


Christie's pulling all the right levers and he's using this very talented and good roster as intended and we're seeing the results. You can fake a turn-around for a couple games. It's starting to get to the sample now where we can start believing this team is actually good and has the right guy in charge.
 
The_Jamal said:
Fox played the first 3 games of that winning streak. So, Fox-Monk/ (Keon started for injured Keegan in Grizz game.. gave up 133)

117.6 ORtg
109.3 DRtg

Then Monk-Keon for the next 3 games:

115.8 ORtg
100.3 DRtg

Then as you said the D rtg the last 3 games, with missing 1 Monk game and Keon gets hurt. But, 121.6 ORtg over the last 3 games too

What's all this mean? Honestly, probably nothing because we're just picking random 3-game samples with a variety of different guys hurt and out of the lineup. But you put all 9 of those games together under the Christie era and after that Laker game:

8-1

118.3 ORtg (4th)
110.5 DRtg (9th)
+7.8 Net Rtg (4th)


Christie's pulling all the right levers and he's using this very talented and good roster as intended and we're seeing the results. You can fake a turn-around for a couple games. It's starting to get to the sample now where we can start believing this team is actually good and has the right guy in charge.
Click to expand...

I think I said 3 games wasn’t enough but the Fox Monk DeRozan line-up is suspect on defense.
 
coolhandluke said:
The Kings could not have made that turnaround because Mike Brown was in the way. He did not put the players in the best position to succeed. When his schemes didn't work despite the players putting in the hard work, instead of taking responsibility and standing with the players, he separated himself from the players and coached via the media. He lost the respect of the players and he had to go.

Also, I really do not understand why we're discrediting Doug Christie's work with the team. The proof is in the pudding. There is joy and grit in this team and the results speak for themselves. Any notion that Mike Brown could have got the same results is just plain disingenuous and insulting.
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GWD
Mr. S£im Citrus said:
Barkley has, in fact, faced that reality. He addressed that point directly on the broadcast, and his response was consistent with what he has always said, his whole broadcasting career: from his point of view, the fact that the team is night and day different under Christie is the players' fault. To him, that's just proof that they quit on Mike Brown, and that they could have had that turnaround under him, if they'd wanted to.
Click to expand...
What was funny about the whole Chuck/Shaq segment was Shaq was coming from "coaches don't matter" angle and Chuck coming from "players quit" angle and it was over both their heads that perhaps in this case what the coach was doing and rumored to be doing - not playing the best defender, freezing talent from rotations, wearing dudes down in practice to the point they were struggling to close games - may actually prove both wrong.
 
coolhandluke said:
Also, I really do not understand why we're discrediting Doug Christie's work with the team. The proof is in the pudding. There is joy and grit in this team and the results speak for themselves. Any notion that Mike Brown could have got the same results is just plain disingenuous and insulting.
Click to expand...
How long does "new coach bump" last?

Nate McMillan seemed to ride it all the way to the ECF. I'm sure there are similar stories. And he probably had the Hawks going for as long as Brown managed to have the Kings playing at a high level.

What's the threshold on when we can officially pronounce Christie the real deal?
 
pdxKingsFan said:
How long does "new coach bump" last?

Nate McMillan seemed to ride it all the way to the ECF. I'm sure there are similar stories. And he probably had the Hawks going for as long as Brown managed to have the Kings playing at a high level.

What's the threshold on when we can officially pronounce Christie the real deal?
Click to expand...

I think the Christie bump is a mixture of two things. One, the team has deviated back toward the norm as far as clutch time play has gone. Two, Christie has pumped some life into the team through his personality.

Mike Brown didn't tell Fox to jump right into Ivey on that 3pt shot or for DDR to completely flub the catch on that easy game winning dunk. He didn't cause Huerter and Keegan to shoot sub 30% from 3. That was just downright bad coaching luck. He did however have a hand in digging his own grave by not playing Keon. Maybe the Kings wouldn't even be in those situations if Keon had played 25mpg regularly? I can't comment on whether or not he lost the locker room or not but it does sound like things were a little complicated from the snippets we've heard from players.

Time will tell with Christie. We really have next to no insight on how the players are really coached. Even Shaq, Chuck and Kenny argued about how important coaching is. Shaq argued it wasn't important and Kenny argued it was and that Shaq is a one of a kind player that could dominate no matter who was coaching. Christie has gone on record saying "I can't teach you guys how to play basketball". I took that as him saying he can't go tell Sabonis, Fox and DDR how to play because they're all vets that know what they're doing. The question will be if he can help develop the younger players like Carter into the savvy old vets that don't need much coaching anymore. He can't answer that any time soon.
 
pdxKingsFan said:
How long does "new coach bump" last?

Nate McMillan seemed to ride it all the way to the ECF. I'm sure there are similar stories. And he probably had the Hawks going for as long as Brown managed to have the Kings playing at a high level.

What's the threshold on when we can officially pronounce Christie the real deal?
Click to expand...

A lot of coaching seems like it's person management, (balancing relationships and performance.) To assess coaching excellence, it takes years, and multiple teams (or at least multiple team rebuilds)

So we won't know any time soon.
 
ESP47 said:
I think the Christie bump is a mixture of two things. One, the team has deviated back toward the norm as far as clutch time play has gone. Two, Christie has pumped some life into the team through his personality.

Mike Brown didn't tell Fox to jump right into Ivey on that 3pt shot or for DDR to completely flub the catch on that easy game winning dunk. He didn't cause Huerter and Keegan to shoot sub 30% from 3. That was just downright bad coaching luck. He did however have a hand in digging his own grave by not playing Keon. Maybe the Kings wouldn't even be in those situations if Keon had played 25mpg regularly? I can't comment on whether or not he lost the locker room or not but it does sound like things were a little complicated from the snippets we've heard from players.

Time will tell with Christie. We really have next to no insight on how the players are really coached. Even Shaq, Chuck and Kenny argued about how important coaching is. Shaq argued it wasn't important and Kenny argued it was and that Shaq is a one of a kind player that could dominate no matter who was coaching. Christie has gone on record saying "I can't teach you guys how to play basketball". I took that as him saying he can't go tell Sabonis, Fox and DDR how to play because they're all vets that know what they're doing. The question will be if he can help develop the younger players like Carter into the savvy old vets that don't need much coaching anymore. He can't answer that any time soon.
Click to expand...

I also wonder if Mike’s approach to Keegan was wrong? Mike would imitate Keegan and make fun of him in press conferences. I often wondered how Keegan took that.

will say also that Mike was key in getting Keegan to rebound better also. As the parents of athletes I found it interesting how the coaches my kids hated were often the best for their development. But that time has a shelf life.

Keegan’s improved offensive play since Mike left was stunning.
 
pdxKingsFan said:
What was funny about the whole Chuck/Shaq segment was Shaq was coming from "coaches don't matter" angle and Chuck coming from "players quit" angle and it was over both their heads that perhaps in this case what the coach was doing and rumored to be doing - not playing the best defender, freezing talent from rotations, wearing dudes down in practice to the point they were struggling to close games - may actually prove both wrong.
Click to expand...
The funny thing is that Chuck and Shaq do not watch the Kings but were happy to pronounce their interpretation of the situation. Uninformed speculation passes muster these days.

Also, if the players had quit, how come we had so many close games that we lost? There would be more blowout losses, right?
 
ESP47 said:
Mike Brown didn't tell Fox to jump right into Ivey on that 3pt shot or for DDR to completely flub the catch on that easy game winning dunk. He didn't cause Huerter and Keegan to shoot sub 30% from 3. That was just downright bad coaching luck. He did however have a hand in digging his own grave by not playing Keon. Maybe the Kings wouldn't even be in those situations if Keon had played 25mpg regularly? I can't comment on whether or not he lost the locker room or not but it does sound like things were a little complicated from the snippets we've heard from players.
Click to expand...
Yes and no, the offense was changed enough that these guys weren't getting the same looks. And if they are being run ragged in practice or assigned all the load on defense then that is going to affect their shot as well. We saw the Kings talk (I think vs. Boston) about how much forcing the Celtics to dribble before a 3-pt attempt killed their shooting % vs. a catch and shoot, and we know as the team moved away from the DHO they were getting different 3pt looks. So while sure, it's on the player to make an open look, how they get them still matters and can bump you down 5% which is the difference between average and a career low oftentimes.
 
coolhandluke said:
The funny thing is that Chuck and Shaq do not watch the Kings but were happy to pronounce their interpretation of the situation. Uninformed speculation passes for opinion these days.

Also, if the players had quit, how come we had so many close games that we lost? There would be more blowout losses, right?
Click to expand...
Yeah I think the only way you come to the "players quit" conclusion is if you watched the Indy game and then decided the blown lead vs. Detroit was simply a quit/not caring vs. the team ran out of gas and couldn't close.
 
ESP47 said:
I think the Christie bump is a mixture of two things. One, the team has deviated back toward the norm as far as clutch time play has gone. Two, Christie has pumped some life into the team through his personality.

Mike Brown didn't tell Fox to jump right into Ivey on that 3pt shot or for DDR to completely flub the catch on that easy game winning dunk. He didn't cause Huerter and Keegan to shoot sub 30% from 3. That was just downright bad coaching luck. He did however have a hand in digging his own grave by not playing Keon. Maybe the Kings wouldn't even be in those situations if Keon had played 25mpg regularly? I can't comment on whether or not he lost the locker room or not but it does sound like things were a little complicated from the snippets we've heard from players.

Time will tell with Christie. We really have next to no insight on how the players are really coached. Even Shaq, Chuck and Kenny argued about how important coaching is. Shaq argued it wasn't important and Kenny argued it was and that Shaq is a one of a kind player that could dominate no matter who was coaching. Christie has gone on record saying "I can't teach you guys how to play basketball". I took that as him saying he can't go tell Sabonis, Fox and DDR how to play because they're all vets that know what they're doing. The question will be if he can help develop the younger players like Carter into the savvy old vets that don't need much coaching anymore. He can't answer that any time soon.
Click to expand...

I recall this board when Brown first got fired about who's really to blame; Brown, players, Monte. And everyone went through their own iteration of what the problem was, but I do think we're starting to get a decent sample here that *something* was off with Brown and the players had given up responding to him. Even the Bucks game where they spanked us in the 1Q, they still kept fighting the rest of the way and ended up winning Q 2-4 by 6 points. And mostly just credit to the Bucks for squashing any potential runs we had in us with big shot after big shot. Or the Philly game where we came storming back late. Or the MIA game in the 4th. Or getting spanked by the Mavs D-League squad in the 1Q and then turning that game around and winning by 10.

That sort of fight didn't really feel possible under Brown anymore. I've never thought this current squad had a talent problem; on paper it's one of the most talented teams this franchise has ever had. But more than anything I think the guys have responded to Christie's enthusiasm and positivity and he's got them believing in themselves again. You could see the visible tension on Keegan's face pretty much any time he'd touch the ball on offense and now he's right back to showing what made him worth of a #4 pick offensively.

Roster still needs some balance and needs a back-up wing and a back-up C. Ideally, we're able to shave some minutes off the starters so they don't have to run 37+ every night. But at least we're getting an accurate look of what the potential upside of this core is and can feel pretty confident this is a team that can win a playoff series, as we expected at the beginning of the season.
 
sactowndog said:
I also wonder if Mike’s approach to Keegan was wrong? Mike would imitate Keegan and make fun of him in press conferences. I often wondered how Keegan took that.

will say also that Mike was key in getting Keegan to rebound better also. As the parents of athletes I found it interesting how the coaches my kids hated were often the best for their development. But that time has a shelf life.

Keegan’s improved offensive play since Mike left was stunning.
Click to expand...

Hopefully Keegan isn't that sensitive. That would be about as soft as you could get and would be a huge red flag as far as his mental strength moving forward. I have faith that he has gotten way worse ribbing than that without getting offended over it.

I'm not sure if his improved play has been due to taking a couple games off to heal his shoulder or the Mike Brown firing. He went 1-9 in his first two games under Christie before he took about a week off.

pdxKingsFan said:
Yes and no, the offense was changed enough that these guys weren't getting the same looks. And if they are being run ragged in practice or assigned all the load on defense then that is going to affect their shot as well. We saw the Kings talk (I think vs. Boston) about how much forcing the Celtics to dribble before a 3-pt attempt killed their shooting % vs. a catch and shoot, and we know as the team moved away from the DHO they were getting different 3pt looks. So while sure, it's on the player to make an open look, how they get them still matters and can bump you down 5% which is the difference between average and a career low oftentimes.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's impossible to ever know. Keegan mostly takes pretty open catch and shoot 3s so I don't know what else he could have asked for. Huerter's 3pt shot seems okay if it's catch and shoot but as soon as he starts shooting off of movement, it's over for him. Even if the DHO was still an effective look for Huerter this year, I have zero faith he would be knocking them down at even a 30% level. He's just lost his touch on any type of movement 3s.

I really think Huerter needs to look for 2s more often. Looking at his career statistics, his 3pt shooting percentages have gone to the crapper but his 2pt percentages have steadily gone way up.
 
ESP47 said:
I think the Christie bump is a mixture of two things. One, the team has deviated back toward the norm as far as clutch time play has gone. Two, Christie has pumped some life into the team through his personality.

Mike Brown didn't tell Fox to jump right into Ivey on that 3pt shot or for DDR to completely flub the catch on that easy game winning dunk. He didn't cause Huerter and Keegan to shoot sub 30% from 3. That was just downright bad coaching luck. He did however have a hand in digging his own grave by not playing Keon. Maybe the Kings wouldn't even be in those situations if Keon had played 25mpg regularly? I can't comment on whether or not he lost the locker room or not but it does sound like things were a little complicated from the snippets we've heard from players.

Time will tell with Christie. We really have next to no insight on how the players are really coached. Even Shaq, Chuck and Kenny argued about how important coaching is. Shaq argued it wasn't important and Kenny argued it was and that Shaq is a one of a kind player that could dominate no matter who was coaching. Christie has gone on record saying "I can't teach you guys how to play basketball". I took that as him saying he can't go tell Sabonis, Fox and DDR how to play because they're all vets that know what they're doing. The question will be if he can help develop the younger players like Carter into the savvy old vets that don't need much coaching anymore. He can't answer that any time soon.
Click to expand...

I've been pounding the drum all season that this Kings team is better than their record, and that a combination of uncharacteristically poor team-wide shooting, assorted injuries, and bad luck/bad timing in the clutch were the most likely contributors to the Kings sub-.500 record as they plummeted down the standings at the end of 2024. Their net rating has been pretty consistent all season long, and it suggests a team with talent enough to be maybe 4-5 games over .500, which is hardly world-beating, but also isn't anything to sneeze at in a tough Western Conference, and it could very well be enough to get you above the play-in break.

All of that said, some progression-to-the-mean was to be expected no matter who's head coaching from the Kings bench. We're seeing that in their clutch play of late, we're seeing it with Keegan's outside shooting, with Monk's elevated play, etc. I do think that there were some decisions made by Mike Brown that surely compounded the problems the Kings were experiencing, so he may very well have been a defensive scheme adjustment or 20-25 mpg of Keon Ellis in the rotation away from keeping his job. But when you lose five straight winnable games at home in a tight Western Conference where a .500 record may not keep you in the play-in mix, then accountability becomes paramount. Should it fall at the head coach's feet? I dunno. From where we're sitting now, with the Kings back in the playoff hunt, it's hard to say that Monte/Vivek made the wrong decision.

Perhaps Christie's motivational tactics and his simplification of the Kings' schemes were enough to help their progression-to-the-mean along. But I think it's just been such a bizarre season so far that it would be folly to ascribe too much credit for the Kings' failures or successes to any one factor.
 
pdxKingsFan said:
Keegan likes 3s at the wing at the end of the arc, they were forcing him into a lot of corner 3s.
Click to expand...

I don’t recall how early it was but the corner was the only place he was shooting well from 3 at one point. He was at around 40 percent from there and in the high 20s above the break.
 
Joshyjosh31 said:
It’s no even realistic might as well call about Wemby and Paolo
Click to expand...

Amen is averaging 12.8 points and shoots .250 from three on fewer than 1.5 attempts per game as a "perimeter player". Amen and Wemby are not remotely in the same class.

Right now, Fox is a better player than Amen. Seven years from now, there's a decent chance that Amen is a better player than Fox, but that's not guaranteed. Houston can certainly make Amen unavailable in a Fox trade, but that may make it very difficult for them to acquire Fox in trade, because there will be other possible trading partners if we put Fox up for sale.
 
After watching last nights game this morning, I have no doubt that trading Fox ASAP for a haul would propel the kings much farther than keeping him. Only if we get a haul. I am not for trading Fox just to trade him. If the kings are gonna wait it out and make a run to keep him they have to be almost certain that they can keep him. If they have info that he is even leaning toward leaving after his contract is up then they need to trade him even if it’s for less than a haul. The one thing that would be devastating would be to lose him for nothing. I’ve said this before but it feels like this is a turning point for this franchise. If they screw this up it feels like this could be worse than screwing up the Luca draft.

I sure am glad I’m not the kings GM.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
Amen is averaging 12.8 points and shoots .250 from three on fewer than 1.5 attempts per game as a "perimeter player". Amen and Wemby are not remotely in the same class.

Right now, Fox is a better player than Amen. Seven years from now, there's a decent chance that Amen is a better player than Fox, but that's not guaranteed. Houston can certainly make Amen unavailable in a Fox trade, but that may make it very difficult for them to acquire Fox in trade, because there will be other possible trading partners if we put Fox up for sale.
Click to expand...

according to the Houston locked on guy Amen is untouchable. But for us Jabari Smith might be just as valuable. An interesting point is Houston basically has Domas Jr. in Sengun. I wonder if Houston might prefer Monk to Fox given how Monk operates the pick n roll with Domas…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mr. S£im Citrus
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Game] 81/82: Kings vs. Clippers 11 APR 2025, 7pm PT/10pm ET
6 7 8
Replies
214
Views
6K
sono
sono
Mr. S£im Citrus
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Game] 73/82: Kings vs. Trail Blazers 27 MAR 2025, 7pm PT/10pm ET
4 5 6
Replies
169
Views
5K
SacTownKid
SacTownKid
Mr. S£im Citrus
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Game] 50/82: Kings vs. Magic 05 FEB 2025, 7pm PT/10pm ET
16 17 18
Replies
533
Views
12K
pdxKingsFan
pdxKingsFan
Mr. S£im Citrus
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Game] 80/82: Kings vs. Nuggets 09 APR 2025, 7pm PT/10pm ET (ESPN)
7 8 9
Replies
255
Views
6K
Capt. Factorial
Capt. Factorial
Mr. S£im Citrus
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Game] 34/82 Kings vs. 76ers 01 JAN 2025, 7pm PT/10pm ET
12 13 14
Replies
413
Views
9K
coolhandluke
coolhandluke