Game -1: Sacramento Kings vs. Los Angeles Lakers, 10/24/14, 7 PM PST 10 PM EST
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
Agreed but he's an average coach that GS team was 12 rated offense how. Curry, Klay, Iggy, Lee, Bogut, Barnes, and Green is hell of a lot of offensive power should be top 5. Give malone that and add those 4 defensive minded players and you'll see he's a good coach.
Collison, Ben, Gay, JT, DMC, Sessions, Nik, DWill, Landry, and Evans. I dare someone to pick 2 good defenders out of that.
Collison, Ben, Gay, JT, DMC, Sessions, Nik, DWill, Landry, and Evans. I dare someone to pick 2 good defenders out of that.
I'm not convinced Gay is much better. And when I think that he's eating up $19 mill, I become less convinced. Gay is key. For the Kings to have a remote chance of getting to .500 he's got to integrate into the motion offense of this team, play D, not get TOs, and not pound the rock. I'm just not on board with Gay until I see it on the floor. If he's just iso Gay of last year, we ain't getting to .500 ball, imo.
It's coming from his performance on the floor. He hasn't looked like a $19 million man. Just a middle level guy. He showed up here last year and played like a $19 mill guy for the first few games; after that, meh. In the preseason he hasn't demonstrated that he fits into a motion offense. His forte is post-up iso, which isn't quick-decision passing, cutting, and shooting off the pass. Also, his defense up to now has been nothing other than middle of the road. I'm not making a judgment of Gay on his reputation, but what I see on the floor, and if continues to play meh in this motion offense then my judgment isn't changing. If he looks like he's integrating into the offense, then great, my opinion will change.
J
He is easily our second best player. Some nights he is the best. You can't really blame him for his salary. Plus we all know it ends this year, so if he reverts back to his tor days we can part ways. However he IS extremely talented and the kings would be worse if they dumped hin for less talented players. You do remember Kenny Thomas right?
No. Rudy is a proven winner in this league. Of course he's overpaid. He's still our second best player. If he doesn't score near 20ppg, we won't be very good, no matter how much motion the offense has. To do that, he has to shoot the rock. It's what he does.
Any objective look at the stats shows the glaring issue is at SG. There's no way around it. Ben was essentially our worst player (one the worst in the entire nba for how many minutes he played) and we start him. And it looks like we will keep doing that, which conflicts strongly with these "win now" edicts coming from ownership. He's a HUGE negative. I like Ben, am still hopeful, but any objective analysis starts with the glaring deficiencies of the SG position on this team. The reason I'm way down on the team (and the FO) is Ben, who, while improved, is miles away from being even a low level starter in this league. We didn't address that except by getting another rookie. To back him up. Any vet SG would have helped to lock down the starting spot. Even a below avg one. Instead, we got a backup PG in Sessions, who merely freezes the development of Ray Mccallum. Ben would be coming off the bench if we were really serious about moving forward as a franchise.
See how Ben sticks out?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...kers-are-even-worse-than-they-were-last-year/
Any objective look at the stats shows the glaring issue is at SG. There's no way around it. Ben was essentially our worst player (one the worst in the entire nba for how many minutes he played) and we start him. And it looks like we will keep doing that, which conflicts strongly with these "win now" edicts coming from ownership. He's a HUGE negative. I like Ben, am still hopeful, but any objective analysis starts with the glaring deficiencies of the SG position on this team. The reason I'm way down on the team (and the FO) is Ben, who, while improved, is miles away from being even a low level starter in this league. We didn't address that except by getting another rookie. To back him up. Any vet SG would have helped to lock down the starting spot. Even a below avg one. Instead, we got a backup PG in Sessions, who merely freezes the development of Ray Mccallum. Ben would be coming off the bench if we were really serious about moving forward as a franchise.
See how Ben sticks out?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...kers-are-even-worse-than-they-were-last-year/
Last edited:
The point was to show one of these 5 isn't like the others. And that player most definitely is not Rudy Gay. I wasn't even talking about JT. FWIW, JTs wins shares per 48 was 0.064 last year. Ben was 0.016.
If it makes anyone feel better, Rudys rookie year w/s per 48 was 0.011. Worse than Ben Mclemore last year. I didn't know that was possible.
If it makes anyone feel better, Rudys rookie year w/s per 48 was 0.011. Worse than Ben Mclemore last year. I didn't know that was possible.
Last edited:
I agree: He is the second best player on the team. That's why he's key. If he doesn't integrate into the motion offense, I'm very pessimistic about the season. If either Gay doesn't integrate into the offense, or Malone capitulates to Gay and goes iso-Gay (and throws the motion offense out the window), it doesn't bode well, imo.
PS Regarding Kenny Thomas, I agree. And he's better than John Salmons also, but that means nothing unless he can manifest it on the floor and integrate into the motion offense. The door isn't closed on Gay in my book, but the door is closing.
PS Regarding Kenny Thomas, I agree. And he's better than John Salmons also, but that means nothing unless he can manifest it on the floor and integrate into the motion offense. The door isn't closed on Gay in my book, but the door is closing.
Yes. Pre-season games aren't meaningless...they're just meaningful for different reasons than many people seem to think. Things like seeing how parts of one player's assets mesh with parts of another's, deciding whether last year's busts have any value whatsoever, and getting key personalities repetitive experience in a playing a more free-flowing style that involves sharing the basketball. And of course you want to win...with whatever combination is out there! You don't throw professional competitors on the floor and say "Do whatever guys, it's all pretty meaningless at this point." You ALWAYS want to win, because it's only in the striving that the things you're really looking for are observable.
The problem is Michael Malone or the front office forcing this positionless motion NBA 3.0 as part of some grand vision. Motion offense is built for average players. Works great. But even the Spurs know who gets the ball at winning time. The Spurs do it to limit Manu/Duncan's minutes. Why would we? Our stars are young.
The front office wants a motion offense, yet they sign Landry? Dude has never been a passer. Same with Rudy, Ben, dwill. They just aren't passers. How does a motion offense fit this personnel? They went out and got these guys to play this style of basketball, yet I don't see much evidence that they can.
You play to your teams strengths, not what you want them to be. If Rudy doesn't fit in the offense, then it is flat out the wrong offense. Gay is a proven veteran scorer. That's what he does, and he does it well. Yes, sometimes in isolation plays. I'm not seeing how taking that away, completely, would improve the team. A good balance, that's what you want.
The front office wants a motion offense, yet they sign Landry? Dude has never been a passer. Same with Rudy, Ben, dwill. They just aren't passers. How does a motion offense fit this personnel? They went out and got these guys to play this style of basketball, yet I don't see much evidence that they can.
You play to your teams strengths, not what you want them to be. If Rudy doesn't fit in the offense, then it is flat out the wrong offense. Gay is a proven veteran scorer. That's what he does, and he does it well. Yes, sometimes in isolation plays. I'm not seeing how taking that away, completely, would improve the team. A good balance, that's what you want.
Regarding Malone vs. PDA, if there is tension - and there has got to be tension - there, just remember: We are dead in the water without Boogie Cousins, and Malone is the only coach he's ever liked and respected at the professional level. He's not a guy that bonds quickly, and who are you going to get that will be able to build bridges to boogieland? I hope Vivec gives everyone more time, but if not then I suspect PDA will be out the door before Malone is.
Rarely do you see that happen, but Malone is also the first coach I can think of that was hired before the GM.
If the Kings don't improve this season I don't think my first thought will be that Malone should be getting more production out of the talent on this roster. It would most likely be, there isn't enough talent on this roster.
If I had to pick right now, I'd keep Malone over D'Alessandro.
But for now I'm going to root for them both having job security due to the Kings playing a lot better this season.
If the Kings don't improve this season I don't think my first thought will be that Malone should be getting more production out of the talent on this roster. It would most likely be, there isn't enough talent on this roster.
If I had to pick right now, I'd keep Malone over D'Alessandro.
But for now I'm going to root for them both having job security due to the Kings playing a lot better this season.
Chubbs, et al: This doesn't make any sense. On the one hand the Spurs players are average; on the other hand the Spurs know who to get it to at winning time (Presumably, their average players?). If the Spurs players are so average, I guess the Kings should offer the outstanding Cousins for as many of their average Spurs players as we can get, install the motion offense, and VOILA! - A CHAMPIONSHIP IS BORN! Or, conversely, if the motion is made for average players the Kings are freaking perfect - they've got tons of average players. Better yet, they have below average players, which makes a fantastic candidate for the playoffs with a motion offense!
Uh, what? I never said the Spurs had average players. I said a pure motion offense is built for average players. The spurs, since they do not have avg players, don't run a pure motion offense cause they give the ball to Duncan/Manu/Tony at winning time. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but my assertion is that even the team that everyone aspires to be is star driven like every other team. In kingsters version of the motion offense, stars must blend in and not be stars. The Spurs don't do that, nor should we.
Is your assertion that the Kings have nothing but below avg players so the motion offense is the only hope? Or just that Rudy is a below avg player so Rudy has to fit the offense, not the other way around?
Is your assertion that the Kings have nothing but below avg players so the motion offense is the only hope? Or just that Rudy is a below avg player so Rudy has to fit the offense, not the other way around?
Oh no. Now we're talkin' "purity"? As in "pure" point guard? So now it's "pure" motion offense? I'll tell you what, I'll stipulate right now that going forward when I refer to the motion offense, it's the motion offense that the Spurs ran last year, not some theoretical ivory tower conception. That's as close to "purity" as you're ever going to see in the NBA. So despite the impurity it might have in some circles, let's see Malone's Spurs' motion offense being run by the Kings this year. If he does that, I'll give him major credit: He did what he said he was going to do.
Its borderline Maloofian to be so faddish as to run around gushing over whatever team won the title last. The year before last it was stretch 4! stretch 4! by idiots ignoring the fact that Miami only won with its "stretch 4" because he's one of the 5 best basketball players to ever play the game. Before that it was ooh! Juan Juan Barea! Runty gunner! Runty gunner! Certain ownership idiots translated that into Jimmer! Jimmer! and started trashing the team over it. Another squad actually dumped a big contract on said runty gunner, have hated it ever since, and just got done buying him out.
The Spurs are the Spurs. And they are a great passing team. And big amazing whoop. We've seen good passing teams before. They also aren't nearly as democratic as shallow neophyte analysts like to claim there are. FGA/36:
Parker 16.5
Mills 15.7
Duncan 15.1
Manu 14.6
Bellinelli 12.4
Leonard 12.1
Green 11.0
Diaw 10.6
vs. Indiana
George 16.9
Scola 14.4
West 13.7
Turner/Granger 12.3/12.0
Stephensen 11.4
Hibbert 11.3
Heck, we were as highly stratified as any team last year, but our Top 3 guys weren't actually taking that many more FGA than the Spurs Top 3 guys:
Cousins 16.8
Gay 15.3
Thomas 15.2
The difference that the shallow nimwits pass over is simply minutes played. The Spurs are NBA grandpas. They can't play big minutes. But when they ARE on the floor they're gunning it nearly as much as our younger personnel is.
The Spurs are the Spurs. And they are a great passing team. And big amazing whoop. We've seen good passing teams before. They also aren't nearly as democratic as shallow neophyte analysts like to claim there are. FGA/36:
Parker 16.5
Mills 15.7
Duncan 15.1
Manu 14.6
Bellinelli 12.4
Leonard 12.1
Green 11.0
Diaw 10.6
vs. Indiana
George 16.9
Scola 14.4
West 13.7
Turner/Granger 12.3/12.0
Stephensen 11.4
Hibbert 11.3
Heck, we were as highly stratified as any team last year, but our Top 3 guys weren't actually taking that many more FGA than the Spurs Top 3 guys:
Cousins 16.8
Gay 15.3
Thomas 15.2
The difference that the shallow nimwits pass over is simply minutes played. The Spurs are NBA grandpas. They can't play big minutes. But when they ARE on the floor they're gunning it nearly as much as our younger personnel is.