Yeah, we all know that; that's not what the thread is about. Thanks for stopping by.
[Debate] Was Malone's style sustainable?
- Thread starter lawlman91
- Start date
King Baller
All-Star
OK, here is the question posed by the OP: "Was Malone's style sustainable?"
IMO the answer is no. Not with the Kings while Vivek, Pete and Mully are running the show.
Of course it was successful and we were all digging it while it lasted. There was this little flame of defensive intensity for a while in Sacto. It is long gone now.
randymoss1881
Starter
No way they fire him off Cousins doesn't get ill. They didn't expect u to be good this year with plans of firing malone at the end of the season. The hot start caught them off guard those idiots were probably mad we were winning Malones way. It is no coincidence that he got fired right before cousins got back they didn't want us to start winning his way and firing malone after winning 40 games would be bad. But here are the teams we played when cousins got sick.
Toronto (without DD), Indiana, Orlando, Utah, Lakers, Houston, and Detriot. With cousins we don't go 2-5 we probably go 5-2 loses to Houston/Toronto. That puts us at 14-10 a pace of 48games as I type that I'm crying.
Tetsujin
The Game Thread Dude
Again, the question isn't "Did Malone have a chance with this front office?" The question is his coaching style sustainable in this league.
Albatros
Starter
I don't have the time or inclination to pour over thousands of posts. It's just not that important to me.
But I'm not a liar, there were people on this board who said those things. Just go and have a look at the game threads of defeats we had under Malone early in the season.
Albatros
Starter
Thank you.
Padrino
All-Star
of course mike malone's "style" was sustainable. we'll never know if the wins that resulted from that style were sustainable, but i think it's fair to say that the kings would have a much better record today if they had not fired mike malone. would a "much better record" have guaranteed the playoffs? absolutely not. the west is brutal, after all. however, a "much better record" would have been something to build on, whereas this season has proven to be yet another waste of a year during demarcus cousins' prime...
personally, i'm more concerned about the sustainability of george karl's style; the last eight years have been proof enough that "offense! offense! offense!" won't get these kings back into the playoffs. "pace" has become an operative word around these parts, but it's hardly a tenet exclusive to "nba 3.0." it seems like every kings coach since adelman has talked about "pushing the pace" with the belief that getting easier baskets was going to lead to wins. but not one coach in the last eight years has placed an emphasis on defense before offense, not until mike malone was hired. when he was given the chance to exercise his belief that consistent defense always keeps you competitive, this team was stringing together its strongest performances in nearly a decade...
the george karl-led kings can try and run with every team in the nba. and they can toss 105 or more on the scoreboard every night. but with so much effort expended in a fast-paced offense, this team simply doesn't have the talent to stop anybody defensively, not without a unifying philosophy of focused team defense that elevates otherwise mediocre (or downright poor) defenders. malone brought that philosophy to a team that had almost no defensively-oriented players to speak of, including a largely ground-bound superstar center who was thought to be a perpetual liability on the defensive end. under malone's tutelage, however, demarcus cousins elevated his effort and his commitment on the defensive side of the ball, and was fast becoming one of the most reliable post-defenders in the entire nba. that's no fluke, and it's also no coincidence that, in the wake of the malone firing, cousins talked about nothing but the team's lack of defensive effort...
never underestimate the importance of a strong relationship between a team's best player and its head coach. while i'm sure big cuz is happy that he has a permanent head coach again, it's still unclear to me if he actually believes in karl's approach to the game. it was clear-as-day that he had bought in to mike malone's philosophy, and the defensive effort that resulted from cousins' belief in his head coach spread to the rest of the team. i've never found "trickle-down economics" to be even remotely compelling as an economic philosophy, but in the "economy" of an nba franchise, it certainly holds water. it's why we often talk about the nba's all-time greats having the kind of impact on the game that makes their teammates better...
in seasons prior, i'm not sure we could definitively say that cousins, for all of his skill, was making his teammates better. during the opening stretch of this season, however, i saw a demarcus cousins who was legitimately making the game easier for his teammates, and it was largely because he was no longer fighting against his coach's authority. instead, he acted as malone's chief representative in the locker room and on the court. the kings were making serious strides on defense, particularly in the starting unit. they were beginning to understand the principles of "moving on a string," and they were beating much better teams because consistent defensive effort always keeps you competitive. the same cannot be said of "pushing the pace." yes, it often leads to easier baskets, but it doesn't necessarily lead to more efficient offense, and it certainly doesn't correlate to defensive improvement...
personally, i'm more concerned about the sustainability of george karl's style; the last eight years have been proof enough that "offense! offense! offense!" won't get these kings back into the playoffs. "pace" has become an operative word around these parts, but it's hardly a tenet exclusive to "nba 3.0." it seems like every kings coach since adelman has talked about "pushing the pace" with the belief that getting easier baskets was going to lead to wins. but not one coach in the last eight years has placed an emphasis on defense before offense, not until mike malone was hired. when he was given the chance to exercise his belief that consistent defense always keeps you competitive, this team was stringing together its strongest performances in nearly a decade...
the george karl-led kings can try and run with every team in the nba. and they can toss 105 or more on the scoreboard every night. but with so much effort expended in a fast-paced offense, this team simply doesn't have the talent to stop anybody defensively, not without a unifying philosophy of focused team defense that elevates otherwise mediocre (or downright poor) defenders. malone brought that philosophy to a team that had almost no defensively-oriented players to speak of, including a largely ground-bound superstar center who was thought to be a perpetual liability on the defensive end. under malone's tutelage, however, demarcus cousins elevated his effort and his commitment on the defensive side of the ball, and was fast becoming one of the most reliable post-defenders in the entire nba. that's no fluke, and it's also no coincidence that, in the wake of the malone firing, cousins talked about nothing but the team's lack of defensive effort...
never underestimate the importance of a strong relationship between a team's best player and its head coach. while i'm sure big cuz is happy that he has a permanent head coach again, it's still unclear to me if he actually believes in karl's approach to the game. it was clear-as-day that he had bought in to mike malone's philosophy, and the defensive effort that resulted from cousins' belief in his head coach spread to the rest of the team. i've never found "trickle-down economics" to be even remotely compelling as an economic philosophy, but in the "economy" of an nba franchise, it certainly holds water. it's why we often talk about the nba's all-time greats having the kind of impact on the game that makes their teammates better...
in seasons prior, i'm not sure we could definitively say that cousins, for all of his skill, was making his teammates better. during the opening stretch of this season, however, i saw a demarcus cousins who was legitimately making the game easier for his teammates, and it was largely because he was no longer fighting against his coach's authority. instead, he acted as malone's chief representative in the locker room and on the court. the kings were making serious strides on defense, particularly in the starting unit. they were beginning to understand the principles of "moving on a string," and they were beating much better teams because consistent defensive effort always keeps you competitive. the same cannot be said of "pushing the pace." yes, it often leads to easier baskets, but it doesn't necessarily lead to more efficient offense, and it certainly doesn't correlate to defensive improvement...
Larry David
Starter
While not a great coach, Mike Malone might be notable for the Kings because he could be added to this list: Eddie Jordan and Rick Adelman (2). That is the list of Kings head coaches that got another head coaching job after they left the Kings.
The remainder, whether head coach or interim head coach, never got another NBA head coaching job after they were finally done with the Kings (Reynolds twice): Phil Johnson, Jerry Reynolds, Bill Russell, Dick Motta, Rex Hughes, Gary St. Jean, Eric Musselman, Reggie Theus, Kenny Natt, Paul Westpahal, Keith Smart, Tyrone Corbin, and George Karl (13).
Some of those coaches are still fairly young and Karl just got here, but I feel fairly safe saying that say it’s unlikely anybody on that list is headed to another NBA head coaching job in the next 5-10 years (or probably ever).
The remainder, whether head coach or interim head coach, never got another NBA head coaching job after they were finally done with the Kings (Reynolds twice): Phil Johnson, Jerry Reynolds, Bill Russell, Dick Motta, Rex Hughes, Gary St. Jean, Eric Musselman, Reggie Theus, Kenny Natt, Paul Westpahal, Keith Smart, Tyrone Corbin, and George Karl (13).
Some of those coaches are still fairly young and Karl just got here, but I feel fairly safe saying that say it’s unlikely anybody on that list is headed to another NBA head coaching job in the next 5-10 years (or probably ever).
To be fair both motta and st Jean coached again.
Padrino
All-Star
since he was fired, i've seen this particular asterisk applied to mike malone quite often, and i'm a bit put off by it. mike malone was an nba head coach for 106 games, and he was saddled with a crap roster for the majority of those games. it seems unfair to equivocate that he wasn't a "great" coach when he wasn't given the time to prove otherwise...
now, i'll readily admit that malone didn't appear to be a very gifted offensive tactician, but is that truly the measure of a "great" coach? for the first quarter of the season, malone took a team that has routinely sat in the basement of just about every defensive ranking for nearly a decade, and he turned them into a stalwart defensive team. his starting unit's defense, in particular, was performing at top-5 levels...
motivating a team with an utter dearth of defensive talent to compete nightly on that side of the ball, and winning because of it, seems like as useful a measure of what makes a "great" coach as any. of course, vivek ranadive and pete d'alessandro put an end to it before we could really find out how "great" mike malone might be, but i suppose i'm just bothered by this kind of unnecessary hedging, as if we need to cater to some misguided sense of even-handedness. malone will likely receive another head coaching opportunity, and while i won't ascribe greatness to him before he's truly earned it, i'm also certainly not ready to claim that he isn't a great coach...
Larry David
Starter
I stand corrected, thanks
The following coaches had a sub .500 record after their first two seasons as NBA head coaches:
George Karl
Gregg Popovich
Jerry Sloan
Chuck Daly
Mike Fratello
Alvin Gentry
Lionel Hollins
Scott Brooks
and those were just a few that I thought of off the top of my head. And I don't believe any of them were hired as late their first offseason or had as much roster turnover as Malone did his first season. The frustration here (and the reason I will not let this go) is that it was a mistake born out of impatience. The same kind of impatience that has torpedoed the Washington Redskins during Daniel Snyder's entire tenure as their owner. Barring a Tim Duncan like draft pick, a small market team like the Kings absolutely has to BUILD something to become a playoff or contending team.
And yet we have an owner that has talked a lot about bringing a silicon valley/tech perspective of "pivoting" and making moves before anyone thinks you should. That philosophy is diametrically opposed to building a foundation and nurturing team growth. To the casual fan, Atlanta "came out of nowhere" this season. For anyone really watching, they have a core that has been together for a number of years and really took off in their second season under their coach's system.
Given the overhaul his first year and the results he was getting to start his second, I thought Mike Malone deserved not only to finish out this season but to be granted one more to see if the continuity and familiarity would result in significant improvement and growth.
If after that time it was clear that the team wasn't advancing offensively or in any other way being held back by their head coach THEN you make a move and build off the foundation that had been created. Because right now I see just as bad a Kings team as in the last few years of the Maloofs.
Obviously there are lots of reasons for optimism (the Kings staying long term, the new arena, an owner who apparently actually does want to win) but in terms of the on court product if there's not going to be any patience then there's not going to be any success.
George Karl
Gregg Popovich
Jerry Sloan
Chuck Daly
Mike Fratello
Alvin Gentry
Lionel Hollins
Scott Brooks
and those were just a few that I thought of off the top of my head. And I don't believe any of them were hired as late their first offseason or had as much roster turnover as Malone did his first season. The frustration here (and the reason I will not let this go) is that it was a mistake born out of impatience. The same kind of impatience that has torpedoed the Washington Redskins during Daniel Snyder's entire tenure as their owner. Barring a Tim Duncan like draft pick, a small market team like the Kings absolutely has to BUILD something to become a playoff or contending team.
And yet we have an owner that has talked a lot about bringing a silicon valley/tech perspective of "pivoting" and making moves before anyone thinks you should. That philosophy is diametrically opposed to building a foundation and nurturing team growth. To the casual fan, Atlanta "came out of nowhere" this season. For anyone really watching, they have a core that has been together for a number of years and really took off in their second season under their coach's system.
Given the overhaul his first year and the results he was getting to start his second, I thought Mike Malone deserved not only to finish out this season but to be granted one more to see if the continuity and familiarity would result in significant improvement and growth.
If after that time it was clear that the team wasn't advancing offensively or in any other way being held back by their head coach THEN you make a move and build off the foundation that had been created. Because right now I see just as bad a Kings team as in the last few years of the Maloofs.
Obviously there are lots of reasons for optimism (the Kings staying long term, the new arena, an owner who apparently actually does want to win) but in terms of the on court product if there's not going to be any patience then there's not going to be any success.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
What's interesting is I don't remember anyone saying during Malone's time that it wasn't sustainable, that it was false hope, that it was a style we couldn't continue to have success with an improve on.
Actually, it was the opposite where fans were ecstatic, here, social media, other forums, everywhere. I even remember when suggesting to exercise caution, being told no, we're finally a very good team, we're on our way, the cloud has been lifted. And both locally and nationally for the first time in years the general consensus was that adopted a style which gave other teams fits due to our scrappy and defensive nature, centered around Cuz who was unstoppable as we punished team after team at the FT line.
But suddenly it wasn't sustainable? I think some are trying to convince themselves we weren't as good as we were and are revising history in order to do so, to make the current situation more tolerable in their minds. And as far as sustainable, I don't remember anyone suggesting we'd be a top 4 team out West and get homecourt in the playoffs or something of that nature but rather we were a serious threat to make the playoffs and an addition here or there would keep us moving up the ladder. That ladder btw has since been run over by an 18 wheeler, smashed to pieces and lit on fire while Cuz looks around hoping to at least find a stepping-stool.
Actually, it was the opposite where fans were ecstatic, here, social media, other forums, everywhere. I even remember when suggesting to exercise caution, being told no, we're finally a very good team, we're on our way, the cloud has been lifted. And both locally and nationally for the first time in years the general consensus was that adopted a style which gave other teams fits due to our scrappy and defensive nature, centered around Cuz who was unstoppable as we punished team after team at the FT line.
But suddenly it wasn't sustainable? I think some are trying to convince themselves we weren't as good as we were and are revising history in order to do so, to make the current situation more tolerable in their minds. And as far as sustainable, I don't remember anyone suggesting we'd be a top 4 team out West and get homecourt in the playoffs or something of that nature but rather we were a serious threat to make the playoffs and an addition here or there would keep us moving up the ladder. That ladder btw has since been run over by an 18 wheeler, smashed to pieces and lit on fire while Cuz looks around hoping to at least find a stepping-stool.
History is written by the winners. D'Alessandro "won," so he gets to decide how the story is told.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Short answer to this question btw is YES.
Its the most sustainable sort of ball you can play assuming you have the personnel. You aren't going to go cold from the rim, and its unlikely at the line. Defensive intensity once established feeds on itself and becomes ingrained. That's doesn't mean we were going to win 60. But compete and be a force? Yes.
Its the most sustainable sort of ball you can play assuming you have the personnel. You aren't going to go cold from the rim, and its unlikely at the line. Defensive intensity once established feeds on itself and becomes ingrained. That's doesn't mean we were going to win 60. But compete and be a force? Yes.
Chupacabra
Starter
I was waiting for someone to come out with the " we took advantage of other teams that were shaking of the rust" argument. We were at the same point of our season as every other team. We too were shaking off the rust. We shook off the rust to the tune of 10-5 against the #1 rated difficulty of schedule up to that point.
King Baller
All-Star
I agree, Defense can be played well by a team on their worst shooting night. Mike Malone had all the players buying in. Cousins and Gay were coming off of a great Team USA run. Mike Malone had the Fans on board believing. We all had bought in lock, stock and barrel. Little did we know Curly, Larry and Moe were plotting to bring it all down.
Yes it was sustainable. It becomes a story of what might of been.
Jerichoholic
Bench
I think we are talking about two separate questions here: First, can Malone's style be a successful one in the NBA with the correct personnel? I say yes, but that can also be said for many styles. Malone's style was defense first with closer more efficient shots on the offensive end and that is a good thing. I like how he put players in the right spots to succeed. He had Cousins down low and Gay mostly in the mid-range which is where both are best. Sure Cousins can shoot jumpers and Gay can shoot the 3-point shot, but it isn't their best strengths. Just two examples, there are more. Bottom line, this style can work.
Second, could Malone's style continue to be successful with this Sacramento Kings roster. I say no. Not to make you all feel bad, but this is a bad roster. Things fell right at the beginning of the year, we seemed to click faster than many other teams, probably because we didn't make many changes in the offseason. We also had many players putting up career best shooting percentages that were not going to last. You can always "chicken or egg", but while I do think Malone played a part in that, it was still not sustainable. Losing was going to begin at some point, whether Cousins got sick or not. When that happened it was going to come down to how the players reacted and we got that answer. They didn't play together, they fell apart, that happened before Malone was fired.
Malone will be back somewhere and his style will probably work and I hope for the best for him. To sum this up, his style will work in the NBA, it just wasn't sustainable here.
