After watching the game last night, I was very eager to see how IT would be graded. Was hoping Brick would do the honors, but it was one of his comnpadres. IT got a pretty good grade esp. for the 3rd and 4th quarter runs where he was instrumental.
Many others had positive comments about IT. And why not? He led the team in scoring. Shot almost 50% from the field. And was really the only Kings player who could create on his own. Moreover, the terrible night for Vasquez made IT look that much better.
I have different opinion. IT represents everything that is WRONG with the Kings. And last night was a great example.
1. The only time the Kings offense looked good was in that first quarter. It looked like actual good basketball. Ball moving. High percentage shots. The Hawks defense stiffened, and then we were back to the regular Kings offense. Which is a mess.
2. It amuses me when the Kings announcers say "unselfish pass." When they utter that phrase, what they actually mean is "the kind of pass that should occur in normal good basketball." But because selfish play is so endemic to the Kings, it's like they have to point out a normal pass as "unselfish." It's embarrassing.
3. Now specifically to IT--he has two modes: 1) float around and do nothing but ask for the ball, disappear, and then jack up an outside shot at the earliest opportunity. 2) take over the ball, pound it into the ground, and without fail take the shot. Pure one-on-one ball. It's like every possession is the Laker's last possession with Kobe handling the rock and the game on the line. Kobe is going to take the shot. So is IT.
4. When IT takes over, what is the offense that the Kings are running? There is no offense. Imagine you were playing with IT, what would you do? Get out of the way and maneuver for a rebound? Do you think anyone on the floor with IT thinks that IT makes them better? That's IT's fundamental flaw. He makes no one else better. And frankly due to his lack of utilization of his teammates, makes them worse.
5. BUT, because the rest of the Kings are so mediocre, you are tempted to think that IT jacking is the best option. Is that a longterm plan for development and rebuilding?
6. You would think for as quick as IT is, and how easily he can break down a defender he would just fall into assists all over the place. He doesn't. Compare him to Teague. Remember how Teague was both getting his own and setting up his teammates, and making great interior passes? And has great awareness also finding teammates on the 3 point line as he drove in? Do you see that with IT? Not at all. Teague only scored, what, 18 points, but he absolutely dominated the game. I think it is very superficial take to say that IT even did half as well as Teague. Teague makes his teammates better.
7. Haven't you all been through this before? You recently had an elite scorer, who may be the best guy in the NBA when it comes to getting to the rim. Reke. But was he a player that made other players better? What happened when he tried to adapt to the flow of an offense and involving others? Didn't work out so well. But now suddenly IT is the answer? Or an answer? An answer to what?
8. You can't be a winning club without being a winning team. IT does not contribute to the team concept. He's the kind of player that is extremely useful in certain doses. But as he is, he can only take you so far in terms of winning and in terms of the development of the team. He's that good poker hand that leaves you shaking your head as you watch your chips exit your pile. "I thought he was a winning hand." But he wasn't. So close.
9. Think of it another way. What good team would want IT? How would they use him? "But Mav, if he was on a good team, he wouldn't be so selfish and jack so much. He would be effective at setting his teammates up." Really? You think so?
10. With all this hate, I need to include a little love. He plays with energy and passion. To his credit. He brings excitement. He is indeed a real talent when it comes to scoring. He is what he is, and I can't blame him for that. It's just a question of how the Kings are going to use him, and if and how he will develop.
Many others had positive comments about IT. And why not? He led the team in scoring. Shot almost 50% from the field. And was really the only Kings player who could create on his own. Moreover, the terrible night for Vasquez made IT look that much better.
I have different opinion. IT represents everything that is WRONG with the Kings. And last night was a great example.
1. The only time the Kings offense looked good was in that first quarter. It looked like actual good basketball. Ball moving. High percentage shots. The Hawks defense stiffened, and then we were back to the regular Kings offense. Which is a mess.
2. It amuses me when the Kings announcers say "unselfish pass." When they utter that phrase, what they actually mean is "the kind of pass that should occur in normal good basketball." But because selfish play is so endemic to the Kings, it's like they have to point out a normal pass as "unselfish." It's embarrassing.
3. Now specifically to IT--he has two modes: 1) float around and do nothing but ask for the ball, disappear, and then jack up an outside shot at the earliest opportunity. 2) take over the ball, pound it into the ground, and without fail take the shot. Pure one-on-one ball. It's like every possession is the Laker's last possession with Kobe handling the rock and the game on the line. Kobe is going to take the shot. So is IT.
4. When IT takes over, what is the offense that the Kings are running? There is no offense. Imagine you were playing with IT, what would you do? Get out of the way and maneuver for a rebound? Do you think anyone on the floor with IT thinks that IT makes them better? That's IT's fundamental flaw. He makes no one else better. And frankly due to his lack of utilization of his teammates, makes them worse.
5. BUT, because the rest of the Kings are so mediocre, you are tempted to think that IT jacking is the best option. Is that a longterm plan for development and rebuilding?
6. You would think for as quick as IT is, and how easily he can break down a defender he would just fall into assists all over the place. He doesn't. Compare him to Teague. Remember how Teague was both getting his own and setting up his teammates, and making great interior passes? And has great awareness also finding teammates on the 3 point line as he drove in? Do you see that with IT? Not at all. Teague only scored, what, 18 points, but he absolutely dominated the game. I think it is very superficial take to say that IT even did half as well as Teague. Teague makes his teammates better.
7. Haven't you all been through this before? You recently had an elite scorer, who may be the best guy in the NBA when it comes to getting to the rim. Reke. But was he a player that made other players better? What happened when he tried to adapt to the flow of an offense and involving others? Didn't work out so well. But now suddenly IT is the answer? Or an answer? An answer to what?
8. You can't be a winning club without being a winning team. IT does not contribute to the team concept. He's the kind of player that is extremely useful in certain doses. But as he is, he can only take you so far in terms of winning and in terms of the development of the team. He's that good poker hand that leaves you shaking your head as you watch your chips exit your pile. "I thought he was a winning hand." But he wasn't. So close.
9. Think of it another way. What good team would want IT? How would they use him? "But Mav, if he was on a good team, he wouldn't be so selfish and jack so much. He would be effective at setting his teammates up." Really? You think so?
10. With all this hate, I need to include a little love. He plays with energy and passion. To his credit. He brings excitement. He is indeed a real talent when it comes to scoring. He is what he is, and I can't blame him for that. It's just a question of how the Kings are going to use him, and if and how he will develop.
