[Debate] Was Malone's style sustainable?

[lawlman91]

Hopefully, this breeds discussion. Inspired from Spike's post.

In order to keep things focused, we are not debating:

1) Should we trust the front office?
2) Does "pace" work?
3) Anything about Coach Karl
4) Anything tangential
5) etc.

Additionally

1) No personal attacks
2) We're all Kings fans at the end of the day

 

[VF21]

Was Malone's style sustainable?

Define "Malone's style"...

 

[KingMilz]

There's only 1 answer and that' WE DON'T KNOW

It could have been Malone was brilliant, it could have been a fluke start/other teams underestimating us it could have been anything, to many variables to truly come to a conclusion and a far to small sample size.

 

[John Galt]

Bad Boys smash mouth defense first "make them feel you" basketball worked, it works, and it will always work. I believe it was absolutely sustainable. I did hope and expect that his offensive imagination would expand over the years, but he had the right priorities, was on the right track, and ... well to the OP question: YES

 

[The_Jamal]

There's only 1 answer and that' WE DON'T KNOW

It could have been Malone was brilliant, it could have been a fluke start/other teams underestimating us it could have been anything, to many variables to truly come to a conclusion and a far to small sample size.

This. We all agree that in no way shape or form that Malone should have been fired. He had some stuff he needed to get better at, but nothing close to him needing to go.

 

[The Hammer]

I think it would have been. It was a great start, and you could see fundamentals really falling into place. He's not closed minded, so I do think the offense would have evolved. Look at the change in how the Spurs do offense over the years under Pop... and as we all know, Malone is very close with Pop. If Pop can't be your coach, you get someone good, who take his cues from one of the best coaches of any sport ever.

 

[fansinceday1]

Our best player was on his way to absolutely punishing people on a nightly basis. The team "looked" like they actually knew what they were suppose to be doing out there. The team looked like they were actually having fun while playing good hard hitting basketball. Our nobody of a coach was on national radio shows because of the way he had this team playing. Malone was patterning himself and our team after the most successful coach/team in the modern era and to this fan it looked like he was pointed in the right direction.

IMO, this could have been sustainable. Ill tell you what, I would have loved to find out.

 

[lawlman91]

Was Malone's style sustainable?

Define "Malone's style"...

There's no concrete answer to that, so it looks like there's a need to argue definitions, unfortunately.

 

[lawlman91]

There's only 1 answer and that' WE DON'T KNOW

It could have been Malone was brilliant, it could have been a fluke start/other teams underestimating us it could have been anything, to many variables to truly come to a conclusion and a far to small sample size.

You're right, we'll never know the real and true answer to this question. We can, however, argue for one side or the other, having to deal with those variables and sample size -- could be a demanding task, if you want to make a solid argument. Hopefully, we'll get a good discussion going, and go as meta as possible on this topic. I get where you're coming from, though.

 

[SacTownKid]

Well, his defensive style relied upon shutting down the paint at the expense of short 3's so a lot of what is happening there would be the same. That's also why having more of a controlled and WELL paced offensive system was a better fit. The offense was still pretty hit and miss though.

 

[Gilles]

There was very soft December to get back on track in terms of wins, plus long homestand would've allowed to work on improving offense.

 

[Larry David]

I think it was sustainable, but it's kinda beside the point to me.

Our front office was infatuated with how the Hawks, Warriors, Spurs and other teams play. They view that as where the game will be in 2-4 years. It's not just the pace, it was the limited 3 point attempts we were taking. They fired Malone because they believed this would be a really good team by this time in 2017 but they would be held back by an antiquated offense.

They put this team so far in a ditch that this time in 2017, DMC will either be gone or about to be traded. I'm going out on a limb and saying that's going to be more of a problem for this franchise than the pace and volume of three pointers we shoot in 2018.

And the notion that this error is in our rear view is false. You've got a GM and owner that are covered in tar from their own incompetence. If the GM isn't fired in two months, he's on his last leg. The owner wants to win now, needs to get right with the fans, and will probably loose money in 16-17 if things don't get a lot better next year (even as he opens a new arena, because we no longer get revenue sharing and the cap will be 90 million). They also want to appease Cousins. This is when people do really stupid things. For example, folks are super hot to trade our 2015 pick for help now. Those 2015 and 2016 picks are insanely valuable because: player salaries are going to explode when the cap goes up; the rookie scale is locked for 2015-16; and the rookie scale will probably be adjusted upward to reflect cap bump when the lockout ends. The already coveted rookie deals, are now about 30% more valuable because the cap will jump well before they end. So if Denver wants to give us Lawson for # 6, fine. But the notion of just trading the pick for some help now could be a really horrible trade. But if you are GM about to be fired and an owner on the verge of being a pariah, sure why not.

If you are in the "hey it's over, lets move on" camp, I get it. But, I think the pressure to hastily fix this self inflicted wound may lead to some really questionable moves this summer.

 

[9x1x6]

I think we took advantage of the other teams shaking off rust in the beggining of the season, we won 5 in a row in who knows how long as we were smitten. Did this roster improve dramatically over last season? No. Did our two best players play basketball all summer and not go home for the summer? Yeah. But in the short time we finally felt winning, and it also showed the potential of a Boogie led team succeeding.

I think we play 500 ball and miss the playoffs. I do think it was sustainable, the man just needed the FOs support and some time.

 

[funkykingston]

The Kings were competing early in the season. That's really the crux of it. Yeah, of course I loved the record they amassed before Boogie went out and it definitely exceeded my expectations, but the more important thing was that I felt they were in every game they played. As a fan, that's all I want. A team that plays hard and competes every night.

And whether or not Malone's style was sustainable (I absolutely believe it was) the fact is that we shouldn't have to be asking this question. Mike Malone showed me enough that obviously I would have let him finish the season. If it was smoke and mirrors that would have been born out in time, but as a fan base we should have at least been allowed to find out instead of torpedoing the thing prematurely.

 

[206Fan]

I don't think so. The reason being? The zone absolutely killed us, and we had no way to adjust to it.

Another reason is that in the beginning of the season, teams didn't think to double team Cuz. As time went by, double and triple teams started coming his way. That's when our offense absolutely broke. Cuz was tripled team and we'd freak out.

 

[dude12]

To the original question, of course it's ****ing sustainable. Defense is borne of effort and desire and that is sustainable. It's been proven over and over by history. It's not even a debate. And yes, Malone had this team all in to this style. That is not debateable. It's not. Because the nimrods fired him doesn't make it unsustainable, it means they ****ed up.

 

[randymoss1881]

To the original question, of course it's ****ing sustainable. Defense is borne of effort and desire and that is sustainable. It's been proven over and over by history. It's not even a debate. And yes, Malone had this team all in to this style. That is not debateable. It's not. Because the nimrods fired him doesn't make it unsustainable, it means they ****ed up.

100%
It would be different if we were shooting lights out from 3. Defense is sustainable.

 

[swisshh]

I think Malone's style would have evolved with more talent and the right talent on the team, and so Malone was sustainable. The defense with the starting unit was solid, and the starting unit won their time on the floor. The team's best players play best at a 3/4 pace. (As best I can describe it.) Not grind it out slow, but defensive focus with a will to run off of stops.

Because you can't separate the style from the roster. Good coaches adapt the style to the roster, and I felt Malone did that.

 

[LPKingsFan]

I don't think so. The reason being? The zone absolutely killed us, and we had no way to adjust to it.

Another reason is that in the beginning of the season, teams didn't think to double team Cuz. As time went by, double and triple teams started coming his way. That's when our offense absolutely broke. Cuz was tripled team and we'd freak out.

I wasn't planning on engaging in this thread, but I'll second this. We'll never know if Malone would have been able to adjust/adapt (and the FO certainly should have given them the tools/opportunity to do so), but the good teams definitely seemed to have figured out how to slow down the "smashmouth" offense in the last few games before Cousins got sick. There has been some degree of revisioninsm on this point here.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

malone was only getting started in getting the team to play together and to their strengths. roster was completely turned over the 1st season and then he finally got a training camp w/ some players to build continuity. he showed what this roster was capable of and defined roles for players.

love watching great offense but playing great defense will allow you to stay in the game when the offense isn't clicking. i felt he needed a seasoned coach like carril in his corner to help him w/ some of the offensive sets.

yes the style was sustainable. i'm sure he would eventually adapt if given more time. how many games before he was fired?

 

[Larry David]

I do find it amusing that a section of the fan base has bought into the "It's cool that we botched the Malone firing, because his winning was not sustainable" Kool Aid the Kings sold back in January.

 

[kingsboi]

We will never find out. He was implementing a half court punch you in the mouth basketball team though and that was a breath of fresh air considering most of the Kings teams in the last decade have been Charmin tissue soft. His offensive schemes weren't the best but he did the most with what he had.

 

[Albatros]

I do find it amusing that a section of the fan base has bought into the "It's cool that we botched the Malone firing, because his winning was not sustainable" Kool Aid the Kings sold back in January.

Some people wanted Malone fired. Some people said maybe Corbin was the catalyst for success when he tore his Achilles and we lost games without him on the bench.

If you take Malones whole kings tenure it would suggest to me this team would level out again. I do think we'd have won about 33/35 games with Malone though.

 

[funkykingston]

Mike Malone went 11-13 with the exact same roster (other than the upgrade of Andre Miller from Ramon Sessions) that hall of fame coach George Karl has gone 4-8 with. And that's with Malone losing his best player for his last 10 games before being fired.

Pretty hard to argue that Mike Malone deserved to be fired.

 

[IfAt1st]

Some people wanted Malone fired. Some people said maybe Corbin was the catalyst for success when he tore his Achilles and we lost games without him on the bench.

You go find those quotes.
You don't get to say things like this unless you have quotes to back it up.

As one of the posters who openly questioned Malone, and pointed out his repeated mistakes, I believe I'm qualified to tell you that your insinuation is incorrect.
"Some people" was ONLY the front office.
I don't care if some drive-by, unknowledgable "fan" said Malone should be fired ; this board was near-unanimous in NOT calling for Malone to be fired.
I specifically said that Malone should be getting HELP in running the offense because his schemes were not working and there was no way they could work in the playoffs. VF21 openly questioned if Corbin getting injured may have been a cause for the team being badly coached in those last games running up to Malone's firing - that in no way should be misrepresented into saying that ANY significant minority of the Kings' fanbase was remotely on board with any firing ideas.

 

[IfAt1st]

Was the Kings' early success sustainable?

Well, it was and it wasn't.
Many good posts have already been made here, pointing to the horrendously simplistic and doomed-to-fail offensive schemes, to the early/surprise nature of the season's success.....
but I'll add that I don't believe the Kings' 3-point defense was NEARLY as good as the stats made it look early on - other teams were just flat-out missing easy 3-ptrs that they have been making ever since (for whatever reason).

But there is also no denying that the Kings were getting the best of playoff teams. The best teams in the NBA were being pushed to their limits against Malone's Kings. Once the 3rd quarters came around, it was dogfights, night-in, night-out, and the Kings gave way some nights (losing the leads and the game) and other nights the tenacious, hard-nosed style of play ended with them on top.
That likely would have continued, except 3 areas suggest the Kings would have IMPROVED:

1) There's no way in hell this bench would have stayed as horrendous as it is if the Kings had kept winning like they were Sessions would have been gone even earlier, and we would have been getting vet help to push us over the edge into the playoffs, IMO.
2) The Kings 3-pt shooting would have gotten better. IIRC, it was close-to-historically bad and they were STILL winning.
3) With the winning and national narrative having turned in the Kings favor, they would have been given more favorable treatment from the refs. Cousins wouldn't be putting up with the abuse he is, and the infused talent would have likely made everything start rolling downhill.

Now, the boulder is back at the bottom of the hill and needs to continue to be pushed uphill again - I simply don't know if Cousins and coach can do it again.
What baffles me the most is - this FO and owner deliberately sabotaged this entire evolution from happening.
Why would they possibly want to stop the franchise's advancement away from the NBA cellar into the spotlight again?
It simply makes no sense unless they are :
* addicted to this year's draft pick.
* so adamantly opposed to winning with defense and slow play that they will rather be losers than give up their fast-paced, up-tempo dream.
* Guaranteed a Top 3 draft pick this year with the lottery balls bouncing our way for once.

 

[LPKingsFan]

I do find it amusing that a section of the fan base has bought into the "It's cool that we botched the Malone firing, because his winning was not sustainable" Kool Aid the Kings sold back in January.

Who's saying that?

I can only speak for myself, and all I'm wondering is maybe this team never was as good as we thought they were.

 

[randymoss1881]

You go find those quotes.
You don't get to say things like this unless you have quotes to back it up.

As one of the posters who openly questioned Malone, and pointed out his repeated mistakes, I believe I'm qualified to tell you that your insinuation is incorrect.
"Some people" was ONLY the front office.
I don't care if some drive-by, unknowledgable "fan" said Malone should be fired ; this board was near-unanimous in NOT calling for Malone to be fired.
I specifically said that Malone should be getting HELP in running the offense because his schemes were not working and there was no way they could work in the playoffs. VF21 openly questioned if Corbin getting injured may have been a cause for the team being badly coached in those last games running up to Malone's firing - that in no way should be misrepresented into saying that ANY significant minority of the Kings' fanbase was remotely on board with any firing ideas.

I also remember people saying that and questioning of Corbin was a better coach. Made me sick than makes me sick now.

 

[ArcoKings]

I really think Malone's style would have been sustainable. I think the team would have improved defensively and offensively as the season moved forward. NO, the Kings would not have made the playoffs but I think they would have been close to a .500 record. I often wonder what would have been if DMC doesn't come down with that illness and in that stretch where DMC was ill the team wins more games than it loses. Does the FO keep Malone or do they get rid of him anyways?

 

[King Baller]

OK, I liked Mike Malone and I think defense wins in the NBA.

That said, George Karl is the Coach folks. I'm pretty sure he signed a 4 year deal for some hefty paydays.

Any questions?

KB