Article on IT

[Chubbs]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...y-to-sacramento-kings-unlocking-their-offense

Is he the key? The commenters strongly think not so much.

 

[The_Jamal]

The article uses facts. The collective bball IQ of the "commentators" is suspect at best.

anyway, nothing we don't know. He's an excellent scorer and underrated as a passer. He gets over-aggressive at times and gets tunnel vision. Offense is better with him on the floor.

 

[bajaden]

Well, I suppose our starting unit would be better offensively, but our bench would become more inept. Its six of one and a half dozen of the other. Its sort of like trying to plug up the holes in the dam. Sooner of later, you run out of fingers. Here's the deal. We have a group of players, that on a given night, anyone of which can put up some very good numbers. Similar to Patterson hitting all 7 or 8 shots in that one game. The problem is, the very next game, Patterson went something like 2 for 9. Excuse me for not looking up the stats. We have on this team, at least at the moment, exactly 2 players that are consistent just about every night. Cousins, and Thomas. You can't win games like that. Inconsistent players are the death of coaches.

Thornton goes 4 for 14 one night, and then goes 9 for 12 the next. Ditto just about every player on this team. Now you expect that from a rookie like McLemore, but you don't expect it from a John Salmons. The only magic answer for this team is replacing inconsistent players with consistent players. That's what makes players all stars. You know what your going to get from them just about every time they set foot on the floor. That's why players like Kyle Korver are sought after, because you know he'll hit the open shot. Its fun to watch a Tony Delk go off for 52 points, but unfortunately, the next night Tony usually gave you 8 pts. You win with talent, and right now, the Kings don't have enough of it.

 

[Chubbs]

IT is basically spud webb to me. Spud put up nice numbers when we decided he could start. We lost plentifully of course, like with IT last year.

Of course, spud avg 7.1 apg in his best season with us. And let's not pretend those kings teams had any better players to pass to than IT now.

That's what you get with IT. Not a lot of wins, but the fans love it. He's spud Webb transported to 2013. Minus the assists. And two inches.

Also about spud, he did next to nothing in limited mins every place he played other than here (looking at his career stats). I don't know if that is Isaiah's future, but I think it's possible. Anyway, just dawned on me why I'm not sold on him. I've seen it before. Not a perfect match, but they certainly are putting up similar numbers on bad teams.

I don't think it matters who starts really. They do have a mess with IT and GV though.

Anyway, this isn't in his kings years, but good show little man. C'mon Isaiah, where the dunks at kid?

 

[The_Jamal]

http://www.basketball-reference.com...um=0&p1=webbsp01&y1=1992&p2=thomais02&y2=2014

IT is better across the board (Spudd's best season with us btw). Much better in fact. Better shooting %'s on everything, with more shots. Doesn't turn the ball over as much. Identical AST%. P/36 has IT blowing Spud out of the water. Let's also not ignore the fact that Spudd was smack dab in the middle of his prime while this is IT's 3rd year.

So yea.

 

[sdballer]

The article uses facts. The collective bball IQ of the "commentators" is suspect at best.

anyway, nothing we don't know. He's an excellent scorer and underrated as a passer. He gets over-aggressive at times and gets tunnel vision. Offense is better with him on the floor.

total facts from the article:
IT's height
Minutes per game
Teams o rating
Assist percentage

Everything else is opinion using select plays to support them which is hardly valid factual evidence.

Obviously GV hasn't done much to prove he is the better pg, but lets not make more of this editorial than we should.

 

[The_Jamal]

total facts from the article:
IT's height
Minutes per game
Teams o rating
Assist percentage

Everything else is opinion using select plays to support them which is hardly valid factual evidence.

Obviously GV hasn't done much to prove he is the better pg, but lets not make more of this editorial than we should.

I said that as well in my post. Nothing we already didn't know. IT is a talented scorer, underrated passer, and is prone to get tunnel vision/hero mode at times.

 

[KingMilz]

You can say what you want about IT but if you look at our 4 wins you will see him and Cousins were the two biggest factors to all of them, while he does have his faults we do need him to play well, I am the first to admit I HATED IT last year as a starter but I have no issue with him coming out and gunning in the 2nd unit, if IT plays well our chances of winning go up by a lot. You have to take the good with the bad with all players and to me IT as a 6th man helps this team more than anyone not named Cousins atm.

The team is a starting PG away from being legit we don't even need a Wiggins/Parker even though they would be preferred. IT has found a perfect role and we should under the right price keep him.

 

[Chubbs]

http://www.basketball-reference.com...um=0&p1=webbsp01&y1=1992&p2=thomais02&y2=2014

IT is better across the board (Spudd's best season with us btw). Much better in fact. Better shooting %'s on everything, with more shots. Doesn't turn the ball over as much. Identical AST%. P/36 has IT blowing Spud out of the water. Let's also not ignore the fact that Spudd was smack dab in the middle of his prime while this is IT's 3rd year.

So yea.

Some of you really like to suck the fun out of things. I really just wanted to post the dunk contest from spud. As far as kings players of the past, spud ain't far off. Comparing across eras is imperfect.

Maybe let the whole season play out? You can't compare 16 games to 77. We can revisit this if you want, I'm curious now. I mean, this is as good as It has ever been. And we are not even 20 games in. But he kinda needs to do it all season. With only 5 road games, seems early to declare IT 2013 the victor over spud 1991. I love that this is a discussion. Brings me tremendous joy.

And you should look at your own stats. Per 36, IT turns it over MORE, not less. And the shooting % .450 vs .445? That's a landslide to you? Sure, he's scoring more right now. But that'll go down. Those 20 point stat padding 4th quarters probably aren't going to be there when we hit the road in earnest.

Spud had to share the ball with tisdale, Simmons and that Richmond guy, all who averaged more than him. IT doesn't have to share. So there's that too. I mean ITs teammates are epically awful offensively.

Spud had a prime? I missed that. And I had season tickets back then. I didn't realize that was prime spud I was witnessing lose every night. It was fun though.

Anyway, spud kills IT in block percentage. Just kills him. 0.5 to 0. Go spud.

 

[Chubbs]

You can say what you want about IT but if you look at our 4 wins you will see him and Cousins were the two biggest factors to all of them, while he does have his faults we do need him to play well, I am the first to admit I HATED IT last year as a starter but I have no issue with him coming out and gunning in the 2nd unit, if IT plays well our chances of winning go up by a lot. You have to take the good with the bad with all players and to me IT as a 6th man helps this team more than anyone not named Cousins atm.

The team is a starting PG away from being legit we don't even need a Wiggins/Parker even though they would be preferred. IT has found a perfect role and we should under the right price keep him.

He's our 2nd most effective guy. He better be a factor when we win!

I think the point is that is not a good thing.

 

[The_Jamal]

Some of you really like to suck the fun out of things. I really just wanted to post the dunk contest from spud. As far as kings players of the past, spud ain't far off. Comparing across eras is imperfect.

Maybe let the whole season play out? You can't compare 16 games to 77. We can revisit this if you want, I'm curious now. I mean, this is as good as It has ever been. And we are not even 20 games in. But he kinda needs to do it all season. With only 5 road games, seems early to declare IT 2013 the victor over spud 1991. I love that this is a discussion. Brings me tremendous joy.

And you should look at your own stats. Per 36, IT turns it over MORE, not less. And the shooting % .450 vs .445? That's a landslide to you? Sure, he's scoring more right now. But that'll go down. Those 20 point stat padding 4th quarters probably aren't going to be there when we hit the road in earnest.

Spud had to share the ball with tisdale, Simmons and that Richmond guy, all who averaged more than him. IT doesn't have to share. So there's that too. I mean ITs teammates are epically awful offensively.

Spud had a prime? I missed that. And I had season tickets back then. I didn't realize that was prime spud I was witnessing lose every night. It was fun though.

Anyway, spud kills IT in block percentage. Just kills him. 0.5 to 0. Go spud.

Not looking at the right context for the numbers good sir.

But,

We shall revisit this. We shall. Revisit. This.

 

[Chubbs]

Not looking at the right context for the numbers good sir.

But,

We shall revisit this. We shall. Revisit. This.

We have to. Clearly, this is of the utmost importance. What if spud wins? What if IT wins? What does it mean? Anything? Everything? Is this the key to the whole thing?! What's next? L-train vs Bayou Bomber? Tis vs cousins? Richmond vs Mclemore? Ppat vs Dennis Hopson? Ndiaye vs Ben Gillery? Les Jepsen vs Jimmer?

Jimmer can totally take Jepsen.

Edit: I'm almost sure jimmer can take Jepsen.

I kid, I kid.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You can say what you want about IT but if you look at our 4 wins you will see him and Cousins were the two biggest factors to all of them...

Do you really believe that's true? How do you even go about making that determination? Because I don't know if my memory of watching the games or the play-by-play necessarily agrees with you. I'll stipulate the Denver game and the second Phoenix game, without much argument. The other two, I'm not so sure:

• How do you quantify how big a factor Thomas was to winning the Brooklyn game, when he scored twelve of his nineteen points in a fourth quarter where we led most of that period by 15+, and never by less than 12? Do you realize that Thomas was only 2-6, when that game was actually in doubt? I mean, seriously, what are you basing it on?
• The first Phoenix game presents a much stronger case but, even then, I don't know that it can be stated with total conviction that Thomas was the second-biggest factor to us winning that game. I think that the case could be made that Outlaw's defense down the stretch was equally as important.

I guess I don't grok why we can't acknowledge how well that Thomas is playing, without making it seem like he's more than he is? Is he our second-most important player? Maybe, I suppose... for differing values of "important." Has he been the second biggest factor in our four wins? Depends on whether or not you consider points scored to be the most important thing. Is scoring nine points in the quarter more important than shutting down the guy on the other team, who's been red-hot? Depends on whom you ask.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Yup the good news and the bad news is that IT is the second most effective player on the team. Yes he brings alot from the bench, but I just don't see him as a starter. (of course I have deep doubts about GV) Truth is we need a #2 scoring option in the starting line up AND a passing smart PG who can move and play some D. Until then what we have is IT, and he should/will get huge minuets.

 

[Chubbs]

Btw, I'd pay money to see IT play Spud webb circa '91-92.

I think IT has been second most consistent at least. I mean, outside cousins, on a night to night basis, IT is the only one that's been close to there every night (with a couple exceptions, but not as many exceptions as most of the team).

I honestly don't think IT would put up the same numbers starting.

 

[hrdboild]

Just dropping in to say that Spud Webb was my first basketball hero, so anyone who wants to bring him up in a discussion gets an automatic like from me. I think Isaiah is more than just entertainment value though. He's a legitimate 20pt scoring threat who is capable of breaking down a defense on his own and taking over fourth quarters. I'd liken him more to Ben Gordon before he got lazy and complacent. Even at his best in Chicago, Gordon was a player who didn't really fit into any kid of offensive scheme. He just went out there and did his thing and everyone else got out of the way. There's certainly value in a player like that and I think IT could have similar success as a 4th quarter problem for other teams on his next contract.

The only real problem with IT right now is that he's playing on a bad team. Vasquez isn't a big scoring threat and he's not a good defender either. His ability to go out and run the offense makes him in asset in the starting lineup, but he becomes a liability in the fourth quarter when every basket counts and two or three key stops can win you the game. More than anything that's why I've dismissed him as a starting PG option. If it hurts your team to play you in the fourth quarter, than you're a backup player. IT is a great weapon to have off the bench, but he's not the guy to run out there with Cousins and McLemore and Williams to make sure everyone gets involved early.

We're trying to establish an identity right now and build some confidence in our starters and that makes IT's "lightning in a bottle" act a bit of a doubled edged sword. He could be a playoff legend like Ben Gordon was in that back and forth Chicago/Boston series from a few years ago but instead we're debating whether his game is too unconventional for a starting PG and whether he's taking too many shots away from Cousins' progression as a go-to scorer. I'd be happy to have Isaiah back next year provided he doesn't require a ridiculous amount of money to re-sign. But this is professional sports, so it's pretty much a given that you can't sign a reasonably valuable young player to a contract that matches their value.

 

[KingMilz]

I guess I don't grok why we can't acknowledge how well that Thomas is playing, without making it seem like he's more than he is? Is he our second-most important player? Maybe, I suppose... for differing values of "important." Has he been the second biggest factor in our four wins? Depends on whether or not you consider points scored to be the most important thing. Is scoring nine points in the quarter more important than shutting down the guy on the other team, who's been red-hot? Depends on whom you ask.

I never made him out to be more than he is, I said in my post he's a excellent 6th man and that we needed a starting PG, I think he has been our 2nd best player so far without any debate this year and the only guy atm I can see taking over in that area could be Derrick Williams. My point is for us to win we need Thomas playing well he with this current roster is vital to our success.

The first Phoenix game presents a much stronger case but, even then, I don't know that it can be stated with total conviction that Thomas was the second-biggest factor to us winning that game. I think that the case could be made that Outlaw's defense down the stretch was equally as important.

He played excellent in both games against the Suns and in one of them shut down Dragic in the 4th quarter (it was the Kings home game).

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I never made him out to be more than he is, I said in my post he's a excellent 6th man and that we needed a starting PG, I think he has been our 2nd best player so far without any debate this year and the only guy atm I can see taking over in that area could be Derrick Williams. My point is for us to win we need Thomas playing well he with this current roster is vital to our success.

Fair enough. My point was that I only look at one of the four wins and think, "No way do we win that game without Isaiah Thomas." I don't think that I was trying to take anything away from how well he's played...

 

[Sluggah]

there is not enough use of the word 'grok' in this world.

 

[ESP47]

What gets me is the crowd that sits around saying that IT is a me first guy or how we will never win with him as our starter or playing big minutes.

If you are a "me first" guy who scores a lot of points efficiently, what is the problem? Especially when you're a better defender than the starter.

Yeah we don't win with IT as our starter. We haven't won in years with ANYONE as our starter. We haven't won since Bibby was our starter and he had Miller, Artest, Bonzi and Martin on that team. IT isn't a championship starting PG but he's our 2nd best player right now and that's just the reality of the situation. Until we trade him for another PG and start winning, no one has any idea whether we can win with IT as our starter or not.

Patrick Beverly, Goran Dragic, Brandon Jennings, Jose Calderon, John Wall and George Hill are all B and C list PG's that are on winning teams and/or in the playoffs right now. Most of these guys have a ton of talent around them. IT does not. Until IT has talent around him and still can't win, we have absolutely no idea whether or not he's a winning PG. It's all just guesses at this point.

 

[swisshh]

Having IT start doesn't really solve anything. Anyone making that question should recognize how differently the team plays with IT in and Cousins out, but they don't really seem to do that in this article.

I look at it this way: IT and Cousins are having their best years of their career and the team is still at 4 wins. The team doesn't look totally dysfunctional as it did in years past, but instead looks like it lacks talent and fitting parts.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You don't take a guy who's a natural fit for sixth man, and try to make him be a starter, just because you don't like the guy starting. To make my second pro wrestling reference of the night, that's not what's Best for Business™. The correct course of action is to go and get a better starting point guard, and leave the sixth man where he is.

And, in the meantime, if you're supposed to be committed to a rebuild, then you suck it up with the starting point guard you have, and leave the sixth man where he is.

 

[Glenn]

there is not enough use of the word 'grok' in this world.

This land isn't strange enough, stranger.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

Isaiah made more sense as the starter before the Williams trade with Mbah a Moute starting. There was zero offense on the court and Cousins needed some relief help to keep himself from becoming quantiple-teamed.

But with Derrick in the starting lineup now, you get another talented scorer in the lineup, and its better to have the floor general setting things up for the offense to get Williams and McLemore going. You want Isaiah coming into the game looking to score, not looking to get Williams and McLemore rolling.

Long term, you would want Isaiah as the 6th man off the bench, like Jason Terry was. You would want to start a defensive-oriented PG who doesn't necessarily have to be a playmaker (hopefully by this time Williams and McLemore can get going on their own accord without the need to be spoonfed). Isaiah comes off the bench guns blazing and finishes the game with the starters.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Unless we're playing from behind in the fourth quarter of every game, I think I'd rather have a defensive-oriented point guard on the court down the stretch, especially if our mythical draft pick works out.

 

[rainmaker]

Malone weighed in on this in the Bee and I not only agree with him but am glad our coach understands the importance of roles, and that you don't negate one positive in an attempt to improve a weakness elsewhere. Refreshing after the Smart era where this line of thinking was beyond him.

“I’ve thought about that at times during the season,” Malone said. “If you looked at just from the preseason alone, no disrespect to anybody, but Isaiah had played the best of anybody at the point guard position. But what I felt was best for the team at that time was to continue to bring him off the bench, allow Greivis to start and let (Thomas) to be that spark plug off the bench. And he’s shown that he can do that and do that at a high level.”

“I go back and forth sometimes but I still feel the best thing for us is to start Greivis, give him an opportunity and then bring Isaiah in,” Malone said. “And more times than not Isaiah is going to be on the floor when we close games, when we finish games. And there are times where he and Greivis will play together.”

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/05/5974849/malone-says-hes-considered-starting.html

Also suggests to me Malone wouldn't have much of an issue looking for a new starting PG next summer and bringing IT back as a 6th man, if the contract makes sense, which is a premise I'd also agree with.

 

[Kingster]

IT is basically spud webb to me. Spud put up nice numbers when we decided he could start. We lost plentifully of course, like with IT last year.

Of course, spud avg 7.1 apg in his best season with us. And let's not pretend those kings teams had any better players to pass to than IT now.

That's what you get with IT. Not a lot of wins, but the fans love it. He's spud Webb transported to 2013. Minus the assists. And two inches.

Also about spud, he did next to nothing in limited mins every place he played other than here (looking at his career stats). I don't know if that is Isaiah's future, but I think it's possible. Anyway, just dawned on me why I'm not sold on him. I've seen it before. Not a perfect match, but they certainly are putting up similar numbers on bad teams.

I don't think it matters who starts really. They do have a mess with IT and GV though.

Anyway, this isn't in his kings years, but good show little man. C'mon Isaiah, where the dunks at kid?

Paul Pierce lost a heckuvalot with Boston before Garnett & Co. joined him; Pierce is a Hall of Famer, one of the better 3s to ever play the game in my mind. A losing team doesn't necessarily confer a guy is mediocre if he is on it. It may just means that the other guys are very mediocre. By the same logic, Cousins must be mediocre. This kind of assessment adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[bajaden]

This land isn't strange enough, stranger.

Especially if your a stranger in a strange land!

 

[Chubbs]

I'm still not sold even on the idea that IT is a "6th man". More a 7-9 type. Landry might be our true 6th man type. But whatever you call them, they can be dynamite bench players.

Paul Pierce lost a heckuvalot with Boston before Garnett & Co. joined him; Pierce is a Hall of Famer, one of the better 3s to ever play the game in my mind. A losing team doesn't necessarily confer a guy is mediocre if he is on it. It may just means that the other guys are very mediocre. By the same logic, Cousins must be mediocre. This kind of assessment adds nothing to the discussion.

I don't see the similarity myself, but to each his own.

 

[Chubbs]

Malone weighed in on this in the Bee and I not only agree with him but am glad our coach understands the importance of roles, and that you don't negate one positive in an attempt to improve a weakness elsewhere. Refreshing after the Smart era where this line of thinking was beyond him.

“I’ve thought about that at times during the season,” Malone said. “If you looked at just from the preseason alone, no disrespect to anybody, but Isaiah had played the best of anybody at the point guard position. But what I felt was best for the team at that time was to continue to bring him off the bench, allow Greivis to start and let (Thomas) to be that spark plug off the bench. And he’s shown that he can do that and do that at a high level.”

“I go back and forth sometimes but I still feel the best thing for us is to start Greivis, give him an opportunity and then bring Isaiah in,” Malone said. “And more times than not Isaiah is going to be on the floor when we close games, when we finish games. And there are times where he and Greivis will play together.”

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/05/5974849/malone-says-hes-considered-starting.html

Also suggests to me Malone wouldn't have much of an issue looking for a new starting PG next summer and bringing IT back as a 6th man, if the contract makes sense, which is a premise I'd also agree with.

Holy moly our coach isn't an idiot. It brings a tear to my eye.