Advanced Stats (IT, Tyreke, Thornton, and Jimmer) from Aykis of SactownRoyalty

[vikinginferno]

Teams do not win in the NBA if they have point guards like IT playing big minutes. He is a scoring point guard with a severe size problem. He will never demand a double team. He is the new Nate Robinson. How many contenders did he start for? Now how many contenders have big ball dominant scoring guards starting for them? Parker, Westbrook, Kobe, DWade, Rose. Look, IT is a nice player and he was a real steal where we got him, but this idea that this team is going to win anything with him as our starting PG needs to go away. He was the best guard on a terrible team this year. Reke carried a much less talented team to virtually the same record his rookie year. Used properly he is capable of things IT could only dream of. I would rather hitch my horse to Reke than IT.

IT and Nate Robinson are not similar at all, I don't see how you can even compare the two. Nate Robinson is simply a sparkplug, IT has a complete all-around game and is already a better player than Nate Robinson while being a rookie. A much better comparison would be Ty Lawson, who has similar shooting, scoring, and passing abilities as IT.

Since when is IT just a "scoring" point guard? If you actually watch the games, you would be able to see the great court vision that he has. He doesn't rack up a ton of assists simply because he didn't have ball control all that much (look at his USG) as guys like DMC, Tyreke, and Thornton got the ball a ton.

Let me repeat this, IT IS A ROOKIE! He had an amazing rookie season. No, not an amazing rookie season for where he was selected. An amazing rookie season period. To discount that and say that he is simply a bench player or a complementary player as someone else said is just absurd.

 

[vikinginferno]

I don't disagree that Tyreke should play at the SG. If he does play next year for he Kings I'd be shocked if he doesn't play the SG. Also, it's indisputable that putting Evans in the corner is not a good thing. I can think of no possible scenario where that should happen if Tyreke's shooting percentage remains the same. By the same token, I don't want IT much in the corner either; he's too good a ballhandler to be put in the corner. (Doing it occassionally is ok to stretch the floor and provide offensive diversity, and to give him a breather). I just wonder if the absence of a real 3 that could stand in the corner, shoot the 3, and play good D was too much for this coaching staff to overcome? I also wonder whether it was a failure of imagination on the part of the coaching staff to design an offense that integrated Tyreke, Cousins and IT into the offense. Maybe it was. But then again, Smart came in at mid-season with a very compressed schedule, not exactly great conditions for devising a new offense. Coaching is a lot easier if you have meshing parts. And without a 3, the parts didn't mesh.

Regarding Thornton, I'd love to see him come off the bench. He's a scorer who can't play very good D, so that makes sense. FWIW, I think Kings management knows that the smaller backcourt doesn't work. Reynolds said as much when discussing the GS trade with Ellis. So that's another thing I think will change next year with the Kings. One way or another, we won't have a smallish backcourt. At least I don't think so. We'll see.

I agree with everything here. Well said, I seem to be agreeing with pretty much all of your posts!

 

[Uncia03]

Here's the thing. You have to be able to shoot to be a #1/#2 option in an offense as on off the ball player. A few things we all can agree is that IT is the better PG than Reke and that Reke should soley be played at the 2. Once he's in that slot full time and learns how to shoot, you'll see him return to that 20 PPG player except with him actually being an efficient offensive star. I'm with the majority that believe Thornton needs to be traded or move to the bench. However, I suppose Im in the minoirty that IT can the PG on a playoff team as a #3 option.

Here is the issue.

IT showed to be a better shooter than Tyreke and he also showed to have better court vision than Tyreke.

That does not mean that by default that IT has to be in the starting line-up and that also does not mean by default that Tyreke has to play at the 2.

If you move IT to the bench, play Tyreke at the 1, and bring in another guard who in addition to bringing some ball-handling/passing, also brings other things to the table to help win (defense, switching, mis-matches, rebounding, shooting, keeping Tyreke engaged in offense, ect.) then that's the better course of action.

I'll say it again, if IT plays the PG spot and the result is that Tyreke get's frozen out of the offense, then IT is not doing his job as PG, and regardless of how the stats look, it's going to result in losing basketball.

I also want to mention that everyone says that bringing in a 'real' PG will result in more easy baskets for other players, and that not having PG-duties will allow Tyreke to focus on scoring.
So the assumption would be that if you did bring in a player to take the PG duties away from Tyreke that his scoring would go up due to having easier baskets and not having to focus on anything but defense and scoring.
It was clear that this did not happen with IT at PG.
Also, it doesn't even matter what position Tyreke is playing, because regardless if he's playing at the 2 or the 3, the offense should still be about getting him and Cousins opportunities to score.
The fact is that IT did a poor job giving Tyreke scoring opportunities. Tyreke got frozen out of the offense and our team had a higher losing % because of it.

As I mentioned above, I'm fine with IT playing PG, but only if Tyreke is kept as a focal point of the offense, otherwise it's just a recipe for losing, as we saw in the 2nd half of the season.

 

[The_Jamal]

Here is the issue.

IT showed to be a better shooter than Tyreke and he also showed to have better court vision than Tyreke.

That does not mean that by default that IT has to be in the starting line-up and that also does not mean by default that Tyreke has to play at the 2.

If you move IT to the bench, play Tyreke at the 1, and bring in another guard who in addition to bringing some ball-handling/passing, also brings other things to the table to help win (defense, switching, mis-matches, rebounding, shooting, keeping Tyreke engaged in offense, ect.) then that's the better course of action.

I'll say it again, if IT plays the PG spot and the result is that Tyreke get's frozen out of the offense, then IT is not doing his job as PG, and regardless of how the stats look, it's going to result in losing basketball.

I also want to mention that everyone says that bringing in a 'real' PG will result in more easy baskets for other players, and that not having PG-duties will allow Tyreke to focus on scoring.
So the assumption would be that if you did bring in a player to take the PG duties away from Tyreke that his scoring would go up due to having easier baskets and not having to focus on anything but defense and scoring.
It was clear that this did not happen with IT at PG.
Also, it doesn't even matter what position Tyreke is playing, because regardless if he's playing at the 2 or the 3, the offense should still be about getting him and Cousins opportunities to score.
The fact is that IT did a poor job giving Tyreke scoring opportunities. Tyreke got frozen out of the offense and our team had a higher losing % because of it.

As I mentioned above, I'm fine with IT playing PG, but only if Tyreke is kept as a focal point of the offense, otherwise it's just a recipe for losing, as we saw in the 2nd half of the season.

bull. This classic excuse of IT being the cause of Reke getting frozen out is flat out wrong. In reality, he got frozen out because we too many cooks in the kitchen, and Thornton is not the kind of player who will adjust his game. IT-Reke-Cousins and 2 role players would work just fine. To discount that and call IT a bench player is disregarding the facts about how good IT actually was for us.

 

[rainmaker]

Uhh, what? IT was hidden? How come he was the one guarding (and outplaying many of) guys like CP3, Parker, Irving, Wall, Rose, Westbrook (in the clutch, Tyreke might have guarded him some in other situations)? He almost always just guarded the PG. There was little to no switching of him onto a "weaker" opponent as you put it. Stop throwing out a bunch of crap and hoping that some of it sticks.

Why are you comparing Tyreke to Rose or Parker? Tyreke is not similar to either of those players. Like I said many times in my post, Tyreke is being played out of position. That does not mean we cannot judge his play at all.

Do you even understand the stats? The USG % includes the long amount of time Tyreke spent at SF and his is STILL much higher than IT's. Even when he was at SF, his USG% was at least that of IT. Your hyperbole is insane. I don't know if you don't watch the games or if you have Alzheimer's (my apologies if you do), but what you are saying and reality are night and day. Tyreke still had the ball a great amount at the SF position and at the SG position. No, he didn't have a 25+% usage rate like it seems some of you would want, but he still had a very high rate and higher than that of IT.

Last month alone, Nash had his way with IT in the 2nd half, and IT was hid on Shannon Brown to start. CP3 had his way in the 2nd of two, although IT did play good D in the 1st of two. Dragic had his way with him. Felton had his way with him. The SA game was particularly bad, as just about every SA PG had their way with him. Three meeting with OKC, where IT was poor enough guarding Westbrook Smart just switched Reke over to guard him in. Just can't guard Westbrook at all. Games I didn't mention were against LAL and Char, which were against basically a college team and the LA 3rd string, where I don't take much of anything from those games for anyone. Minn, he guarded Ridnour well, after Ridnour lit us up the previous time. Played well defensively against Dal and NO. Lost both.

Why am I comparing Reke to Parker or Rose? Let's see, as I explained above, take guys who are used to having the ball in their hands, stick them in the corner, and of course their stats suffer, even two of the top PG's in the league. But here you are, then comparing the stats of an undersized SF to a PG, and thinking that's a logical way to compare two guards. If you wanted to be logical, you'd have compared Reke's stats at PG under Smart, which I posted a few weeks ago, and compared those to IT at PG under the same coach. But that would involve using stats in context, which you're incapable of doing.

Off the top of my head, Reke stats at PG under Smart were

22 games total: 18.3 ppg, 5.9 asts, 5.6 rebs 41%FG
Last 10 games: 20.0ppg, 6.3 apg, 5.6 rebs, 42+% FG

During that span we had a better record than since IT took over PG duties. I'll also let you go look and see how many PG's in the league put up those numbers, but I'll give you one hint, IT aint one of them.

So you ignoring those stats which have been posted, and acting like they don't exist, or simply being too damn lazy yourself to calculate them shows just how disingenuous and out of context your argument is. But sure, go ahead and use Reke's time at SF being frozen out of the offense as a valid comparison to a PG involved in just about every play.

Do I even understand stats? Not sure that's even worthy of a response. I just helped point out some of the holes in your stat based thread, while I don't remember you ever popping into any of my stat based threads and showing any of it was wrong. So you can't refute any of my stat based threads, but because I respond to yours, you come back with the "do you even understand stats" crap of an argument. How convenient.

Given how you use usage rate, you don't even know how it's calculated, which again, has been pointed out here recently. You state "Even when he was at SF, his USG% was at least that of IT", and act as if that means he was as involved as IT,or had anywhere near the opportunities to impact the game? Everyone with eyes could see Reke was being frozen out and not used correctly. Yet, to make it worse, you say something stupid, "I don't know if you watch any games" even though you and everyone else knows damn well I watch every game and am commenting in game threads AS THEY HAPPEN, and then you follow up your stupid comment with an insulting one by insinuating I have Alzheimers, which I don't, but my mom is developing the early stages of, and her father died from 13 years ago. So thanks for that.

But you seem to like to accuse others of "not watching games" when they disagree with you, as some sort of deficient fallback when they make points you can't refute. You did it to me, than followed it with the Alzheimers/I don't know stats crap, and then again in a conversation with Arkitect, who is a pretty knowledgeable poster and clearly watches many, if not all the games, which in my mind shows you're not really wanting to have any kind of a sincere, genuine conversation, and would rather accuse people you know damn well watch the games, of not watching, or worse.

So I don't care if you respond to this, nor do I care enough to carry on with you. Do what you want, means little to me. There have been a number of stat based threads put up by myself and others, showing just how poor we've been with 3 guard lineups, defensively, and record wise since the Reke to SF switch, which you have yet to refute or even attempt to refute.

 

[Bricklayer]

Actually no, IT is a major problem for Reke because IT needs the ball. Thronton just needs shots. There is a difference. IT is a ball dominant player (and no, that's not what usage rates -- don't use so called advanced stats if you don't know the formulas they are based on*). Hence IT, as he played this year, was actively in Reke's way. Adn at times if I thought IT was actually a problem personality it looked like he was actually intentionally ignoring Reke. Since I don't, I can only assume he did not know what to do with him and his coach didn't have anything effective drawn up for him.

Now down the last few games stretch there was some hope, and it came largely because IT altered his game for whatever reason. Don't know whether it was he himself, or the staff talking to him. It did notably come jsut after Reke's agent blew through town, so maybe there was a direct result, maybe not. In any case, IT backed off offensively, and all of a sudden we were running more sets with Reke initiating and IT playing off the ball, which BTW makes more sense given that IT can shoot while Reke can't. The result was that IT for those games was playing it much more like Beno did during his two years with Reke, which is the way it has to be. Now that actually limits ITs game and aggressiveness, which is one of the reasons I think the best way to maximize our personnel is to move IT to the bench to play Bobby Jackson, and have free reign to play the game his way as aggressively as he wants. But if we are going to insist on starting him, then the mix at the end of the year (which got notably good results, albeit against a series of teams that for various reasons may not have been as competitive as they should have been) is the way to go.

* the magical "advanced" usage rate stat is nothing more than somebody's weighting of assists, turnovers, FTAs and FGAs. Its FGA + (FTA x.44) + (AST x .33) + TO and then a modifier for pace. Its not a stat of ball dominance. All it measures are jsut the normal stats, with some artifical multiplications thrown in. Put another way, if Steve Nash brings the ball up the court, dribbles for 18 seconds, then passes to Jared Dudley, who dribbles for 4 seconds and shoots a jumper, Jared Dudley has a big usage percentage. Steve Nash isn't credited with anything. "Usage" is half a step up from "who shoots". It doesn't take into account how much you have the ball, where you have the ball, where your shots come from, nothing. Allen Iverson and Peja Stojakovic would have the same usage percentage if both scored on a play, even though the amount of time with the ball was radically different. DeMarcus had one of the highest usage percentages in the league. Yet if he hit his first layup his usage percentage would be much smaller than if he misses it, grabs the board, misses again, and finally finishes. Yet we haven't "used" him any more at all.

 

[pshn80]

How many of those 'last few games' were games where Outlaw started at the 3 and Evans started at the 2?

 

[Arkitect]

IT and Nate Robinson are not similar at all, I don't see how you can even compare the two. Nate Robinson is simply a sparkplug, IT has a complete all-around game and is already a better player than Nate Robinson while being a rookie. A much better comparison would be Ty Lawson, who has similar shooting, scoring, and passing abilities as IT.

Since when is IT just a "scoring" point guard? If you actually watch the games, you would be able to see the great court vision that he has. He doesn't rack up a ton of assists simply because he didn't have ball control all that much (look at his USG) as guys like DMC, Tyreke, and Thornton got the ball a ton.

Let me repeat this, IT IS A ROOKIE! He had an amazing rookie season. No, not an amazing rookie season for where he was selected. An amazing rookie season period. To discount that and say that he is simply a bench player or a complementary player as someone else said is just absurd.

When I say scoring point guard it is relative compared to other point guards. Out of all guards post all star break, he ranked 30th in APG. He is not CP3 or Nash out there. In no way am I discounting how good of a season that he had. It was a good rookie year. Not great, but good. The problem is that no team in the NBA wins with a PG like IT starting and playing major minutes. I would love to see a list of championship winning teams starting PGs under 6 feet tall. If you are happy being a bottom dwelling team for the next 10 years, then by all means put the ball in ITs hands at the expense of Reke. Personally, I like seeing the team I root for in the playoffs. And that is why I cannot support starting IT.

 

[LPKingsFan]

I would love to see a list of championship winning teams starting PGs under 6 feet tall.

You rang?

 

[rainmaker]

IT and Nate Robinson are not similar at all, I don't see how you can even compare the two. Nate Robinson is simply a sparkplug, IT has a complete all-around game and is already a better player than Nate Robinson while being a rookie. A much better comparison would be Ty Lawson, who has similar shooting, scoring, and passing abilities as IT.

Since when is IT just a "scoring" point guard? If you actually watch the games, you would be able to see the great court vision that he has. He doesn't rack up a ton of assists simply because he didn't have ball control all that much (look at his USG) as guys like DMC, Tyreke, and Thornton got the ball a ton.

Let me repeat this, IT IS A ROOKIE! He had an amazing rookie season. No, not an amazing rookie season for where he was selected. An amazing rookie season period. To discount that and say that he is simply a bench player or a complementary player as someone else said is just absurd.

Yeah, I missed this the first time but won't let it slide. I get tired of nonsense.

IT:
11.5ppg 4.1apg 2.6rpg .8spg .448%FG 25.5 mpg

Nate:
11.2ppg 4.5apg 2.0rpg 1.2spg .424%FG 23.4mpg


Both are tiny, both celebrate after every shot, both are from Seattle, and both are undersized, combo guards who enjoy getting up shots and can be selfish at times.

But seriously, you keep spouting off about the rhetoric of others? They aren't anything alike? Not sure there's another player as similar to IT. So IT is some magician in terms of passing, yet the "simply a sparkplug" player in Nate averages more assists per? IT has a great all around game, yet the "simple sparkplug" in Nate dishes more assists and gets almost .5 more steals per, while ppg and rpg are also incredibly close?

This actually kind of proves IT should be a sparkplug, as many have said all along, but instead our FO and coaching staff decided handing over the offense to someone who should be a spark off the bench and running a fallacious ROY campaign is more important than actually using our 2nd best player correctly or paying any attention whatsoever to defense.

But sure, continue on with your nonsense that they're nothing alike, and IT is the far superior player.

Edit: BTW, no need to repeat, "IT IS A ROOKIE!". We know....

 

[The Hammer]

Last month alone, Nash had his way with IT in the 2nd half, and IT was hid on Shannon Brown to start. CP3 had his way in the 2nd of two, although IT did play good D in the 1st of two. Dragic had his way with him. Felton had his way with him. The SA game was particularly bad, as just about every SA PG had their way with him. Three meeting with OKC, where IT was poor enough guarding Westbrook Smart just switched Reke over to guard him in. Just can't guard Westbrook at all. Games I didn't mention were against LAL and Char, which were against basically a college team and the LA 3rd string, where I don't take much of anything from those games for anyone. Minn, he guarded Ridnour well, after Ridnour lit us up the previous time. Played well defensively against Dal and NO. Lost both.

Why am I comparing Reke to Parker or Rose? Let's see, as I explained above, take guys who are used to having the ball in their hands, stick them in the corner, and of course their stats suffer, even two of the top PG's in the league. But here you are, then comparing the stats of an undersized SF to a PG, and thinking that's a logical way to compare two guards. If you wanted to be logical, you'd have compared Reke's stats at PG under Smart, which I posted a few weeks ago, and compared those to IT at PG under the same coach. But that would involve using stats in context, which you're incapable of doing.

Off the top of my head, Reke stats at PG under Smart were

22 games total: 18.3 ppg, 5.9 asts, 5.6 rebs 41%FG
Last 10 games: 20.0ppg, 6.3 apg, 5.6 rebs, 42+% FG

During that span we had a better record than since IT took over PG duties. I'll also let you go look and see how many PG's in the league put up those numbers, but I'll give you one hint, IT aint one of them.

So you ignoring those stats which have been posted, and acting like they don't exist, or simply being too damn lazy yourself to calculate them shows just how disingenuous and out of context your argument is. But sure, go ahead and use Reke's time at SF being frozen out of the offense as a valid comparison to a PG involved in just about every play.

Do I even understand stats? Not sure that's even worthy of a response. I just helped point out some of the holes in your stat based thread, while I don't remember you ever popping into any of my stat based threads and showing any of it was wrong. So you can't refute any of my stat based threads, but because I respond to yours, you come back with the "do you even understand stats" crap of an argument. How convenient.

Given how you use usage rate, you don't even know how it's calculated, which again, has been pointed out here recently. You state "Even when he was at SF, his USG% was at least that of IT", and act as if that means he was as involved as IT,or had anywhere near the opportunities to impact the game? Everyone with eyes could see Reke was being frozen out and not used correctly. Yet, to make it worse, you say something stupid, "I don't know if you watch any games" even though you and everyone else knows damn well I watch every game and am commenting in game threads AS THEY HAPPEN, and then you follow up your stupid comment with an insulting one by insinuating I have Alzheimers, which I don't, but my mom is developing the early stages of, and her father died from 13 years ago. So thanks for that.

But you seem to like to accuse others of "not watching games" when they disagree with you, as some sort of deficient fallback when they make points you can't refute. You did it to me, than followed it with the Alzheimers/I don't know stats crap, and then again in a conversation with Arkitect, who is a pretty knowledgeable poster and clearly watches many, if not all the games, which in my mind shows you're not really wanting to have any kind of a sincere, genuine conversation, and would rather accuse people you know damn well watch the games, of not watching, or worse.

So I don't care if you respond to this, nor do I care enough to carry on with you. Do what you want, means little to me. There have been a number of stat based threads put up by myself and others, showing just how poor we've been with 3 guard lineups, defensively, and record wise since the Reke to SF switch, which you have yet to refute or even attempt to refute.

This is simply awesome. vikinginferno... you have just been TORCHED!!

 

[Arkitect]

You rang?

I didn't say there were not any. Plus playing with 2 of the top 10 big men of all time doesn't hurt .

 

[Tyndel]

Actually no, IT is a major problem for Reke because IT needs the ball. Thronton just needs shots. There is a difference. IT is a ball dominant player

I tried to make this same point a couple months ago. Reke and IT can't live together on the court at the same time with starter minutes. However they can work together in a 3 guard rotation where their minutes overlap.

MT is almost a perfect SG he can catch and shoot he can drive enough to keep the defense honest he roams opening up offensive rebounds and that could be expanded on with a coaching staff to off the ball cuts more for layups. The only thing he is weak at at that position is defense. But defense is something a coach can work on with a player and make then buy into being average at. Its also easy to hide one player on the defensive end if you are are competent coach. MT works with both IT and Reke if there is an offensive system.

 

[Gary]

I tried to make this same point a couple months ago. Reke and IT can't live together on the court at the same time with starter minutes. However they can work together in a 3 guard rotation where their minutes overlap.

MT is almost a perfect SG he can catch and shoot he can drive enough to keep the defense honest he roams opening up offensive rebounds and that could be expanded on with a coaching staff to off the ball cuts more for layups. The only thing he is weak at at that position is defense. But defense is something a coach can work on with a player and make then buy into being average at. Its also easy to hide one player on the defensive end if you are are competent coach. MT works with both IT and Reke if there is an offensive system.

We tried that though (Evans and MT) and it sucked.

Also, people trying to bring up the point that IT needs the ball? Well yah, I wouldn't want to have a 5'10 SG on the team. He's a PG, so of course he's going to have the ball a lot.

And Evans and IT not working? Well is that more because Evans is off the ball or because IT has the ball? Things haven't worked yet either way but I believe in order for this team to ultimately succeed Evans is going to have to learn to play off the ball because of his lack of PG skills.

Oh and whoever said Robinson is like IT is full of it. The biggest part where they differ is how much better IT sees the floor than Robinson. Robinson is as much as a mini MT or a mini Reke as he is IT.

Sometimes stats don't tell the story, and in the case of Robinson (who I have seen a TON of) and IT the only differences are those stats you listed and maybe the size of the two.. Other than that they are completely different players.

EDIT way later: I put Robinson was a mini IT lol... Meant to say an IT not a mini IT

 

[Glenn]

This debate about IT and Tyreke has been going on for months and seems to be an extension of the "has Tyreke improved" thread. It seems to have brought out the best and worst of the debators. Tyreke is fascinating and I persume it is because because he falls into no convenient class of ball player and leaves us all wondering what to do with him. I understand that. I hope IT continues to improve and I fully expect that to happen. I hope we find a coach who can deal with a great athlete with an unusual skill set also. From what I have seen of Smart, I fear he has done more harm than good. There is no question that Tyreke is a great athlete. What to do with him is the question. I don't care who is the better PG, IT or Tyreke, as just on what I have seen, Tyreke has a very odd game that doesn't work well at PG. In any case, I fear this team will not improve and I don't think that fear has anything to do with who is better, Tyreke or IT. Anyway, continue on but I am really interested if anyone has changed their minds after all this.

 

[The_Jamal]

This debate about IT and Tyreke has been going on for months and seems to be an extension of the "has Tyreke improved" thread. It seems to have brought out the best and worst of the debators. Tyreke is fascinating and I persume it is because because he falls into no convenient class of ball player and leaves us all wondering what to do with him. I understand that. I hope IT continues to improve and I fully expect that to happen. I hope we find a coach who can deal with a great athlete with an unusual skill set also. From what I have seen of Smart, I fear he has done more harm than good. There is no question that Tyreke is a great athlete. What to do with him is the question. I don't care who is the better PG, IT or Tyreke, as just on what I have seen, Tyreke has a very odd game that doesn't work well at PG. In any case, I fear this team will not improve and I don't think that fear has anything to do with who is better, Tyreke or IT. Anyway, continue on but I am really interested if anyone has changed their minds after all this.

Agreed. At the end of the day, the Kings are in a good place with the talent we currently have. Every rebuilding team in the league would love to have our core of IT, Tyreke, Thornton, Cousins, and JT and another top 8 pick on the way. Fortunately, (and unfortunately to an extent) it's not about lack of talent anymore. It's about maximizing each of our core players talent and putting them in the right positions to succeed.

 

[Glenn]

Agreed. At the end of the day, the Kings are in a good place with the talent we currently have. Every rebuilding team in the league would love to have our core of IT, Tyreke, Thornton, Cousins, and JT and another top 8 pick on the way. Fortunately, (and unfortunately to an extent) it's not about lack of talent anymore. It's about maximizing each of our core players talent and putting them in the right positions to succeed.

That's it, isn't it? We have a lot of skill. Even JJ Hickson had talent. I don't blame the reason he bombed out totally on him as he is doing well in Portland. Perhaps a little patience is necessary as I think a lot of new people on our team took a few months to break out of the doldrums like Salmons. Heck, maybe Outlaw although that may be stretching it. Jimmer got better and certainly will get better. DMC is improving as he should. JT is improving. It takes patience and a total do over of our lineup is not the way to go.

Don't want to hijack the thread. Sorry folks.

 

[Mal]

Nice try. Not, unexpected, of course.

 

[Mal]

Why are you afraid to use IT's starting numbers? He improved in every category once he began starting.

 

[Mal]

Evans at PG just doesn't make sense. Because he's such a poor shooter (.206 from three), teams can just pack the lane and guard he and Cousins at the same time.

 

[Spike]

Evans at PG just doesn't make sense. Because he's such a poor shooter (.206 from three), teams can just pack the lane and guard he and Cousins at the same time.

Sigh...You want IT's starting numbers? How about general trends.

Pre-All Star: 11-22
Post All-Star: 11-22

Pre-All Star Home/Road: 12/21
Post-All Star Home/Road: 21/12

What more do you need? We had the chance to do way better against an easier schedule, and yet, we did the same. How about this?

vs. LAL, OKC, SA (Teams still in the hunt in the West)

with Evans at PG: 3-0
without Evans at PG: 1-6

(Note that the win against the Lakers was actually against the LA D-Fenders.)

Take all the numbers you want, all the shooting percentages, but with the ball in Evans's hand regardless of position (for you, Gary) we are competitive, with the opportunity to dominate, against the big boys. Without the ball in his hands...well, we see what that looks like. We run a lot, we score a lot of useless points, and the opposing team goes ABA old school on us and sees if they can give their home fans free tacos.

 

[Tyndel]

Further we didn't have an offensive system to start the season and didn't start putting one in until several games into Smarts reign. But I am sure that and having WP as your coach the first 2 years had nothing to do with the problems people have with Reke at PG....

 

[Uncia03]

Sigh...You want IT's starting numbers? How about general trends.

Pre-All Star: 11-22
Post All-Star: 11-22

Pre-All Star Home/Road: 12/21
Post-All Star Home/Road: 21/12

What more do you need? We had the chance to do way better against an easier schedule, and yet, we did the same. How about this?

vs. LAL, OKC, SA (Teams still in the hunt in the West)

with Evans at PG: 3-0
without Evans at PG: 1-6

(Note that the win against the Lakers was actually against the LA D-Fenders.)

Take all the numbers you want, all the shooting percentages, but with the ball in Evans's hand regardless of position (for you, Gary) we are competitive, with the opportunity to dominate, against the big boys. Without the ball in his hands...well, we see what that looks like. We run a lot, we score a lot of useless points, and the opposing team goes ABA old school on us and sees if they can give their home fans free tacos.

I want to point something out to all those who do not agree with Spike's post.
I personally care more about the success of the Sacramento Kings than I do about the success of Tyreke Evans.

I'm of the opinion that the better that Tyreke and Demarcus get, the more they improve and refine their games the better the success of the Kings will be. But if another player emerges, then I'm perfectly fine letting a different player be the one to bring the Kings success. I care about the team success, and by success I mean play-off success, than I do about any particular player.

If playing IT at PG would have spurred the Kings to go on a big run, and perhaps just missing out on the playoffs, I think there'd be a different feeling around here about the success of the team with IT at the helm. If we had gone 22-11 instead of 11-22 I think I could be convinced that maybe there was something to the "IT is statistically one of the best PGs in the game and he makes the team win" claims. Unfortunately, with a far, far, far easier schedule, we showed no improvement in our ability to win games.

And I know that a lot of people are throwing out the point differential the latter half of the season to show that even though the team didn't win, we were in a lot more games.
I'll just say that we played an 'easy buckets' junk-style offense, where we were running and gunning.
Because of that the offense and shooting % looked better, but we lost games because at the end of the game teams decided to play 'real' basketball, and we were not able to compete and sustain our scoring.
So sure, we were in a lot more basketball games, but frankly, since we don't play a 'real' style of basketball, we don't know how to compete at the end of games when the junk-ball is taken away and we have to dig down and really compete.
The result is closer games, but we are not developing a team which can seriously compete in the play-offs, and that should be the ultimate goal.

So because of what I saw on the court, I'd rather go the more traditional route and sculpt the team around Demarcus and Evans and have the supporting pieces such as IT, JT, Thornton have to compliment them, rather than have Tyreke's game diminished in favor of IT. There really are not going to be any statistics that will be thrown out which will move me from this position.

As I've mentioned several times, I'm ok with IT at PG, but only if IT makes Tyreke's job easier, by getting Tyreke easier shots, spreading the floor and knocking down the open shots Tyreke provides him. I'm not ok with IT at PG if that in turn freezes Tyreke out of the offense, because we just saw the losing results of that strategy.

 

[Kingster]

IT and Nate Robinson are not similar at all, I don't see how you can even compare the two. Nate Robinson is simply a sparkplug, IT has a complete all-around game and is already a better player than Nate Robinson while being a rookie. A much better comparison would be Ty Lawson, who has similar shooting, scoring, and passing abilities as IT.

Since when is IT just a "scoring" point guard? If you actually watch the games, you would be able to see the great court vision that he has. He doesn't rack up a ton of assists simply because he didn't have ball control all that much (look at his USG) as guys like DMC, Tyreke, and Thornton got the ball a ton.

Let me repeat this, IT IS A ROOKIE! He had an amazing rookie season. No, not an amazing rookie season for where he was selected. An amazing rookie season period. To discount that and say that he is simply a bench player or a complementary player as someone else said is just absurd.

It's funny you mentioned Lawson. I've been thinking the same thing. Been watching the Denver/LA series more to watch Lawson more than anything else. I also totally agree about your IT take. I just don't understand this "scoring point guard" bit.

 

[pshn80]

I pay to see games at Arco and I have. I don't want to see Evans a PG anymore. If the coach starts him there because he's changed, that's fine with me. But I had to watch him "run the team" for far too many games to try him again.

 

[bajaden]

I want to point something out to all those who do not agree with Spike's post.
I personally care more about the success of the Sacramento Kings than I do about the success of Tyreke Evans.

I'm of the opinion that the better that Tyreke and Demarcus get, the more they improve and refine their games the better the success of the Kings will be. But if another player emerges, then I'm perfectly fine letting a different player be the one to bring the Kings success. I care about the team success, and by success I mean play-off success, than I do about any particular player.

If playing IT at PG would have spurred the Kings to go on a big run, and perhaps just missing out on the playoffs, I think there'd be a different feeling around here about the success of the team with IT at the helm. If we had gone 22-11 instead of 11-22 I think I could be convinced that maybe there was something to the "IT is statistically one of the best PGs in the game and he makes the team win" claims. Unfortunately, with a far, far, far easier schedule, we showed no improvement in our ability to win games.

And I know that a lot of people are throwing out the point differential the latter half of the season to show that even though the team didn't win, we were in a lot more games.
I'll just say that we played an 'easy buckets' junk-style offense, where we were running and gunning.
Because of that the offense and shooting % looked better, but we lost games because at the end of the game teams decided to play 'real' basketball, and we were not able to compete and sustain our scoring.
So sure, we were in a lot more basketball games, but frankly, since we don't play a 'real' style of basketball, we don't know how to compete at the end of games when the junk-ball is taken away and we have to dig down and really compete.
The result is closer games, but we are not developing a team which can seriously compete in the play-offs, and that should be the ultimate goal.

So because of what I saw on the court, I'd rather go the more traditional route and sculpt the team around Demarcus and Evans and have the supporting pieces such as IT, JT, Thornton have to compliment them, rather than have Tyreke's game diminished in favor of IT. There really are not going to be any statistics that will be thrown out which will move me from this position.

As I've mentioned several times, I'm ok with IT at PG, but only if IT makes Tyreke's job easier, by getting Tyreke easier shots, spreading the floor and knocking down the open shots Tyreke provides him. I'm not ok with IT at PG if that in turn freezes Tyreke out of the offense, because we just saw the losing results of that strategy.

I agree completely. My biggest fear is that the Maloof's know Tyreke's contract is coming up, and they know it will take a fair chunk of change to resign him. They may be trying to turn Petrie into the Billy Beane of basketball, where you just keep trading your valuable pieces for multiple draft picks and young, but unproven players. Scarey thought!

 

[gunks]

Thats probably exactly whats going down. They are too broke to keep Reke and Cousins, so they're opting to keep Cousins (wise choice, but crap situation).


By the time we get new owners, Reke is probably going to be hitting his jumpers, putting up 24/5/6, and gunning for the playoffs....On another team.

 

[Spike]

I agree completely. My biggest fear is that the Maloof's know Tyreke's contract is coming up, and they know it will take a fair chunk of change to resign him. They may be trying to turn Petrie into the Billy Beane of basketball, where you just keep trading your valuable pieces for multiple draft picks and young, but unproven players. Scarey thought!

Which really doesn't work in basketball.

To be fair, Beane isn't all about young and unproven, but rather making sure the pieces fit. Our owners haven't figured that part out yet. We can be a pretty mediocre and cheap team by getting pieces that fit. I'm surprised they haven't tried that route. (Even Sterling has mastered that concept.)Oh wait, weren't we just there before the arrival of Evans/Cousins?

I do worry that Evans is gone, but moreso because of the broke owners over inept coaching...although I think the two are most definitely related.

 

[Mal]

Yeah...because Thomas should give the ball to a lousy shooter every time. That's your formula for success? Thomas did not freeze Evan out. That's just a imaginary thought with ZERO basis in fact. If you have a love affair with Evans, then of course you want to see him with the ball...EVEN IF IT HURTS the team. There is no other way to view it. Too bad Cousins is such a poor shooter for a big man. A shooting guard that can't shoot from the perimeter and a big that shoots 44 percent. That really helps the assist numbers. Pass to Evans and no assist is coming because he can't shoot from the outside he has to pound the ball and drive the lane. No assist there. Perhaps, he can learn to better play without the ball from the shooting guard position, so it's possible to get him the ball in a scoring area. But, again, with him on the floor, the defense just tightens up in the lane...covering both he and Cousins at the same time. The only thing that keeps the defense somewhat honest is when Thomas is in the game and it a deep threat (.406 from 3 as a starter.) Cousins has benefited by having Thomas at point. No so much with Evans as he has no real position when he doesn't work to find an opening without the ball.

It's quite the accomplishment Thomas did as well as he did....despite a rather mediocre supporting cast.

 

[VF21]

Yeah...because Thomas should give the ball to a lousy shooter every time. That's your formula for success? Thomas did not freeze Evan out. That's just a imaginary thought with ZERO basis in fact. If you have a love affair with Evans, then of course you want to see him with the ball...EVEN IF IT HURTS the team. There is no other way to view it. Too bad Cousins is such a poor shooter for a big man. A shooting guard that can't shoot from the perimeter and a big that shoots 44 percent. That really helps the assist numbers. Pass to Evans and no assist is coming because he can't shoot from the outside he has to pound the ball and drive the lane. No assist there. Perhaps, he can learn to better play without the ball from the shooting guard position, so it's possible to get him the ball in a scoring area. But, again, with him on the floor, the defense just tightens up in the lane...covering both he and Cousins at the same time. The only thing that keeps the defense somewhat honest is when Thomas is in the game and it a deep threat (.406 from 3 as a starter.) Cousins has benefited by having Thomas at point. No so much with Evans as he has no real position when he doesn't work to find an opening without the ball.

It's quite the accomplishment Thomas did as well as he did....despite a rather mediocre supporting cast.

I absolutely love it when rabid player fans can't control themselves and go so far overboard to prove that their guy is THE guy. IT is a good player who, if the team ownership doesn't totally sabotage the roster, should have a good season next year and for a number of years after that. He is not, however, the future of our franchise. That poor shooting big man is worth about a dozen Isaiah Thomas - and this is from someone who loves IT and what he brings to the Kings. You continually shoot yourself in the foot and, in the process, alienate a lot of KINGS fans with your obvious player bias. It's about the name on the front, dude, not the name on the back. Look at it another way - if Geoff Petrie hadn't taken IT at the 60 he most likely wouldn't even be playing right now. And if it wasn't for that "mediocre supporting cast," he would most likely have spent most of his rookie year buried at the end of the bench.

This need to crucify one player in order to elevate your own favorite player (and it's not just you who does it) got old back in the days of Peja and Webber. It takes a TEAM to play this game. We should be more worried about getting some complementary players for IT, Evans and Cousins. That's where our real problem lies.