[Game] Game Thread: Kings at Grizzlies 1/21/12

[ParniValjak]

Seems like every team shoots 60% against us..I wish we had one of those nights.

Bring on the Blazers! Go Kings!!!

What do you mean?!

There are people on here that keep saying we have improved defensively....you know...we have gotten better than last year!

Not sure which games they are watching!

Its funny though, for such an improved team defensively, every time we come up against an opponent they shoot a season high in FG% against us that tells me we are MILES OFF being a decent defensive team, let alone a good one.

 

[frownifdown]

I just realized they were missing 3 of 5 starters with Hayes, Salmons, and Thornton out. Not that that's an excuse for getting blown out. But it is somewhat encouraging insofar as what things could look like a few weeks down the road with a full roster and more practice time under Smart. I'm anxious to see how Smart uses Hayes.

So when Salmons starts, it's (partially) his fault we suck so bad, but when he doesn't play, the loss isn't as bad because we were missing one of our starters? Does anyone even want him starting? Not from what I've read. But I do get the point, and hopefully we can get Hayes and Thornton back soon and Jimmer can play like he did tonight we should be ok. It seemed so easy to be excited about our team in the offseason (after the draft) but I think it'll be awhile before we can consistently win games. Need a LOT of coaching.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

So when Salmons starts, it's (partially) his fault we suck so bad, but when he doesn't play, the loss isn't as bad because we were missing one of our starters?

If that's directed strictly at me, i was never on the it's Salmons' fault bandwagon. Yes he's sucked at times but having watched nearly every game over the last few years, i realize that Greene and Garcia suck just about as badly most of the time. Tonight in particular I think they could have used Salmons' defense.

 

[SacTownKid]

You're sort of struggling with your words, but improving the offense isn't as simple as adding more shooters. Beno provided offensive stability. He is a consistent player. He can run a consistent pick n roll. He really isn't that great of a passer and had one of lowest assist rates among starting PGs, but he provided a stability that outweighs the benign matter of added shooters on the roster. Meanwhile, Dalembert provided defensive and rebounding stability which helps the team get more fastbreak opportunities and puts less pressure on their offense to make shots every time down the floor. Dalembert also worked the high post offense better than Hickson.

Likewise I would say the same to you. You are comparing pure talent, as described below in another post, with production, overall fit, and role. I merely pointed out the fact that this team should have improved in many areas of concern by adding the specific players they did. It's not hard, if you struggle with shooting in adding shooters you should be able to deal with the issue to a degree. This team hasn't and my argument is that at the moment, things are so out of sorts that no particular individual is going to change that. Talent, much like role, or any other aspect of sport can be misused and misguided from a directional standpoint. That is the case now.

 

[swisshh]

Likewise I would say the same to you. You are comparing pure talent, as described below in another post, with production, overall fit, and role. I merely pointed out the fact that this team should have improved in many areas of concern by adding the specific players they did. It's not hard, if you struggle with shooting in adding shooters you should be able to deal with the issue to a degree. This team hasn't and my argument is that at the moment, things are so out of sorts that no particular individual is going to change that. Talent, much like role, or any other aspect of sport can be misused and misguided from a directional standpoint. That is the case now.

There is no reason they should have improved in those aspects if improving on those aspects require meeting certain criteria in other aspects.

Let's say, that on a scale of 1 to 50, you want to reach 40 on a particular skill. Now let's say that in order to reach 40 on that particular scale for said skill, you must first reach 35 at another skill on an equal scale or an important and related variable to that first skill will continually halt you from reaching your desired skill level. This says that continually adding persons with high skill regarding the first quality won't increase your overall team skill at that quality if you are lacking in the second required quality. (The first here being shooting, the second being a combination of timely passing, low offensive pressure on the individual and offensive awareness.)

So there are two skills here and a system where skills are dependent upon each other in order to matter. If these skills equate to talent and the talent is a factor of all skills then continually overloading upon one skill without regards to its variables will eventually run into a wall where you can no longer gain anymore talent from a skill without having more talent at other skills that improve the effectiveness of the particular desired skill. (Shooting.)

So shooting quality and team quality is stuck at a certain level because other skills that must be met to a certain level aren't being met. So all the talent you speak of is excess and single-minded. All the things I am concerned with are talents that equate to a winning ball player. Potential isn't a talent. It's a group-decided possibility with possibly conflicting opinions that even in its most positive light has yet to become.

 

[Kingster]

What do you mean?!

There are people on here that keep saying we have improved defensively....you know...we have gotten better than last year!

Not sure which games they are watching!

Its funny though, for such an improved team defensively, every time we come up against an opponent they shoot a season high in FG% against us that tells me we are MILES OFF being a decent defensive team, let alone a good one.

How 'bout the Pacers and SA games? It's a no-brainer that they've gotten better on getting back on D.