A Semi-Interesting Take on the Kings

[thatguy]

This somewhat rehashes what has been thrown around on the forum for a time now. I found it to be at least mildly provoking. What follows is an excerpt; the whole thing can be found at http://highfivehoopschool.blogspot.com/2007/01/state-of-sacramento-kings-basketball.html

Like D'Antoni, Adelman empowered his players. He gave them a framework in which to perform and allowed them to do their job without looking over their shoulders. He was not perfect, and probably relied on his starters too much during the regular season, but he did a great job of creating an environment where the players performed optimally.

In this situation, Petrie and Adelman worked together to create a highly enjoyable and successful team. They did not fail because they did not win a championship; they ran into more talented teams, but they built a winner in Sacramento and succeeded beyond any rational fans' expectations.

Now, with Adelman gone, the Kings are in the midst of a transition. Last year, Petrie and Adelman sealed their fate by building around Bibby, Miller and Peja and staying with the Kings' system. However, when the Kings' struggled early, Peja was dealt for Artest and soon, the Kings' system did not work as well without the great shooter on the floor.

With Mussleman, the Kings still run some of the old motion; the occasional post split for a Bibby three-pointer or a Martin backdoor. However, Mussleman is more of a traditional, defensive-minded, pick-and-roll or set play coach. But, his personnel is not built for his system. He has offensive personnel trying to become a defensive team. It's no surprise that Williamson is again one of the Kings more effective players, as he fits a more traditional style of play better than Thomas, Miller or Abdur-Rahim because of his low block post moves and toughness on defense.

So, where does that leave the Kings? Well, right where they are. Struggling. Struggling to find an identity. Struggling to find a go-to player. Struggling to find the right line-ups. Struggling to win games. And, there is no magic answer to stop the struggles. It's not time to write-off the season; however, it is time to lower expectations and realize the system no longer fits the personnel and system no longer elevates the team beyond their talent level. Players like Bibby and Miller are being exposed as above-average players, but not the all-stars the public once believed them to be.

 

[VF21]

Fantastic find, thatguy. Thanks for sharing. I especially liked the last paragraph:

So, where does that leave the Kings? Well, right where they are. Struggling. Struggling to find an identity. Struggling to find a go-to player. Struggling to find the right line-ups. Struggling to win games. And, there is no magic answer to stop the struggles. It's not time to write-off the season; however, it is time to lower expectations and realize the system no longer fits the personnel and system no longer elevates the team beyond their talent level. Players like Bibby and Miller are being exposed as above-average players, but not the all-stars the public once believed them to be.

Lower expectations? Hrm... Where have I heard that recently?

 

[Kingsgurl]

I don't know about recently, but I've been saying that since the season started.
We've got some nice, young pieces. The time for a new direction is soon to be upon us......I hope

 

[VF21]

I don't know about recently, but I've been saying that since the season started.
We've got some nice, young pieces. The time for a new direction is soon to be upon us......I hope

I was referring to this:

http://www.kingsfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16698

 

[JB_kings]

I guess Muss forgot to show the Maloofs that Power Point slide that exposed Bibby and Miller as above average players.
As time goes on, it's becoming clear that Adelman had a knack for coming up with schemes that utilized players strengths. The first indication of Muss' lack of experience was when he tried in preseason to get Bibby to play some pressure defense. That's like asking Brad to dunk on someone taller than 6 1/2 feet tall - good luck with that.

 

[TheJoker]

Some people actually thought we could've been a 5th seed or 3rd. which was complete homerism then any kind of fan view on the team.

the realistic expectation coming into this season was fighting for the 8th seed since thats gone our only expectation is hoping for a good lottery pick.
​

 

[jay dubb]

thats what i have been saying all this time, you can not have a defensive minded coach with a bunch of offensive minded players, thats why I kind of blame Petrie for the Kings terrible season so far. If you knew you were going to hire a defensive minded coach at least you should have helped the guy out by somehow getting some freakin defensive minded players in here.

 

[fnordius]

Some people actually thought we could've been a 5th seed or 3rd. which was complete homerism then any kind of fan view on the team.
​

I didn't really see anyone predicting that, it seemed to me that 90% of the predictions were for a first round exit, or for missing the playoffs by a little. Which, considering the similarity of our roster to late last year, seemed entirely justified.

The only BIG change was in the coaching. And, in not predicting disaster, we all seem to have put too much confidence in the new coaching staff.

If anyone here actually did predict 3rd seed, it might also have been that they absolutely loathed Adelman. A fair number of fans used to blame him for holding the team back in every which way, and a few may have thought that Muss would lead us to some sort of defensive paradise.

But that's not a homerism, that's just being wrong.

 

[swisshh]

His assessment of Adleman is horriblely wrong, but the assessment of the current Kings is correct. It's a direction they went in that they didn't yet have the personnel for.

The weird thing is he almost stumbles upon why Adleman had success, but doesn't realize it. The players don't fit, because they fit a certain system. The system optimized certain aspects of their game at the cost of other aspects of the player's game. Miller fit the system. To use his example, Miller would not work at all in Phoenix with D'Antoni. D'Antoni would not optimize Brad. Brad would struggle or sit on the bench due to his lack of athleticism. Kevin Martin would fit in Phoenix because he's athletic and can shoot, he would fit better with D'Antoni than Adleman who did not optimize him or players like Gerald Wallace. Martin blossoms this year without the system, because he can do more than what the former system defines you to do.

Please, for the love of God, let's not rewrite the history on Adleman. The Kings have been in a slow, but steady downfall since the Webber injury debacle.

 

[VF21]

Some people actually thought we could've been a 5th seed or 3rd. which was complete homerism then any kind of fan view on the team.​

And what exactly is wrong with a little homerism? This is a message board for OPINIONS not a final example for a doctorate. People can express hope, faith, belief, etc. without someone coming along later and calling them complete homers...


​

 

[VF21]

His assessment of Adleman is horriblely wrong, but the assessment of the current Kings is correct. It's a direction they went in that they didn't yet have the personnel for.

The weird thing is he almost stumbles upon why Adleman had success, but doesn't realize it. The players don't fit, because they fit a certain system. The system optimized certain aspects of their game at the cost of other aspects of the player's game. Miller fit the system. To use his example, Miller would not work at all in Phoenix with D'Antoni. D'Antoni would not optimize Brad. Brad would struggle or sit on the bench due to his lack of athleticism. Kevin Martin would fit in Phoenix because he's athletic and can shoot, he would fit better with D'Antoni than Adleman who did not optimize him or players like Gerald Wallace. Martin blossoms this year without the system, because he can do more than what the former system defines you to do.

Please, for the love of God, let's not rewrite the history on Adleman. The Kings have been in a slow, but steady downfall since the Webber injury debacle.

I disagree. There is nothing wrong with this statement:

Adelman empowered his players. He gave them a framework in which to perform and allowed them to do their job without looking over their shoulders. He was not perfect, and probably relied on his starters too much during the regular season, but he did a great job of creating an environment where the players performed optimally.

You're the one attempting to rewrite tyhe history on Adelman. And I think it's pretty telling when you've already rewritten the spelling of his name.

 

[thatguy]

swisshh, I think you should probably read the whole article if you haven't already.

Also, he wasn't comparing systems; he was comparing styles.

 

[swisshh]

I disagree. There is nothing wrong with this statement:



You're the one attempting to rewrite tyhe history on Adelman. And I think it's pretty telling when you've already rewritten the spelling of his name.

I'm sort of insulted by your lack of effort in response. No matter how you spell his name, players were wasted just as well as they were benefactors of his system and he was reluctant to adapt it once the talent level dropped off and changed. That blog or article constantly contradicts itself and you'll have a hard to reputing that statement.

If you state that Adelman empowers and got the most out of his players, how can you then state that Corliss is now better that he's out of the system?

Statement:

Adelman empowered his players. He gave them a framework in which to perform and allowed them to do their job without looking over their shoulders.

The contradiction:

probably relied on his starters too much

So the bench had a short leash(as we should all remember). Which is pretty contradictory to not having somone looking over your shoulder.

Statement:

he did a great job of creating an environment where the players performed optimally.

The contradiction:

It's no surprise that Williamson is again one of the Kings more effective players, as he fits a more traditional style of play better than Thomas, Miller or Abdur-Rahim because of his low block post moves and toughness on defense.

Yes, Corliss is better in this system. That means.. he wasn't performing optimally under Adelman. As the same with Wallace and Martin.

 

[swisshh]

swisshh, I think you should probably read the whole article if you haven't already.

Also, he wasn't comparing systems; he was comparing styles.

Then why did he have systems in his second paragraph

However, as I have written repeatedly, the Kings, more than any team in the NBA, were greater than the sum of its parts; they were a "system team," where the personnel fit the system perfectly and the team performed beyond the talent level of its team.

He states the idea then doesn't totally grab it.

 

[thatguy]

Then why did he have systems in his second paragraph



He states the idea then doesn't totally grab it.

Okay, to clarify my point: he was comparing D'Antoni and Adelman's styles not their system. He isn't even saying one system is/was better than the other. If you read it, he is saying that the reason the former Kings and the current Suns were/are successful because the coach allow(ed/s) them to be; at no point is there a point where it is said that the rosters/systems were interchangeable. Stop reading things solely as a way to try to make a point. It isn't becoming.

 

[Warhawk]

I'm sort of insulted by your lack of effort in response. No matter how you spell his name, players were wasted just as well as they were benefactors of his system and he was reluctant to adapt it once the talent level dropped off and changed. That blog or article constantly contradicts itself and you'll have a hard to reputing that statement.

If you state that Adelman empowers and got the most out of his players, how can you then state that Corliss is now better that he's out of the system?

Statement:



The contradiction:


So the bench had a short leash(as we should all remember). Which is pretty contradictory to not having somone looking over your shoulder.

Statement:


The contradiction:


Yes, Corliss is better in this system. That means.. he wasn't performing optimally under Adelman. As the same with Wallace and Martin.

OK, just because he relied on his starters a lot does not mean the bench was on a "short leash". One does not follow the other.


A coach's job is to get the best out of the players as a team, not maximize any one player's talent. If you have 8 players that fit a style and two that do not, do you change the style to fit the two or do you ride the system that fits the 8 (including all your starters)? One would think the answer is obvious....

 

[Merdiesel]

I still marvel at the media's lovefest for the Suns, when they were ever critical of the Kings earlier in the decade.

TELL ME ABOUT!!!... great article.