Go Grizzlies! (Kings Related)

[KingsFanGER]

We have already seen, what happens, when Cousins is defended by a SF. Michael Beasley made it very difficult to find Cousins in the post. And he is not close to Green in terms of defensiv presence.
Question is, if we can achieve a well balanced team. With Cousins post play will always be one of our weapons offensively. But we cant rely on it entirely, cause teams will find ways to take it away or make it less effective.

 

[Bricklayer]

It has nothing to do with whether Gasol or Zbo are a "real #1", whatever that means.

Without understanding that concept, its hard to understand the entire history of NBA basketball. Or even non-NBA basketball.

The ultimate trump card in basketball is an offensive player so wildly talented that he can create his own shot while being keyed upon defensively. Beat his own man, force you to help, probably beat the help too. That player, that trump card, becomes even more important in the postseason. EVERYTHING else can be taken away. An offensive scheme no matter how intricate can be diagrammed and broken down, anticipated, and defeated by a defensive scheme. But the brilliant individual offensive player, the guy so good he can create in the moment, beat you on the fly, that you can't diagram against. That ability to improv is the great separator between the stars that have always won titles, and the not quites who have not. Actually focusing too much on improv would be a mistake, because if you are so brilliant at a single thing nobody can stop you even when the defense is set, it doesn't matter whether you are improving or not. Shaq was simply too physically strong. Kareem's skyhook could not be blocked. And so when the defense clamps down, and all the lesser talents see those open lanes and little voids on the floor they need to score disappear, its that superstar, that true #1, who is the guy who can keep it going, can score through the defense's best attempts, and along the way, break that defense, loosen its hold on the other players by forcing the defense to come help on him.

THAT is what Memphis has never had. Its precisely what has happened to them again. Zach was always just off that pace, and a guy who even when he was at his peak wasn't likely to beat the doubles and set guys up with the pass. Gasol has never been close. His usage is up this year, but he's still a secondary scorer who can be modestly efficient on an occasional open jumper, a pick and roll here and there, a mismatch post etc. But throw it to him and say go get 'em big guy...and he can't do it. Neither can any of the other Grizz. Its always been their limitation. Always their cap. They don't have the superstar to lead them. They do everything right, but they can't get the tough points when needed.

Their lack of shooting has allowed the Warriors to play games...but so has their lack of a star. Once the games began, Memphis simply does not have an individual talent capable of excelling anyway. The defense has focused on ZBo, and he's a 15ppg guy anymore. He can't beat that attention consistently, let alone punish them for it. And the real guy being exposed is Gasol, who is shooting 21-58 (about 36%) the last three games since the Warriors discovered they could guard him, single coverage, with just about any PF or even SF on their team and encourage him to "shoot it big guy!". They're ok with that, as they should be. Gasol can't be efficient at that kind of volume. In the two games the Grizz won they shot only 5-15 from 3pt land and 5-16 from 3pt land. Its not their perimeter shooting that has dried up. The Warriors have just squeezed their interior guys, and there are no genius level players there to beat it. Cahnge Zbo to Dirk, or change Gasol to Hakeem or heck, Cousins, and all of a sudden things look different. But against the Grizz frontline, those guys are containable. You can diagram it, put it into action, and they aren't going to beat it with individual brilliance. And its been the same story during this entire 4-5 year run. Zach Randolph is shooting .429 in the playoffs. Last year it was .404. Marc Gasol is shooting .408 in the playoffs. Last year it was .405. These guys are just not primetime offensive players.

 

[Bricklayer]

We have already seen, what happens, when Cousins is defended by a SF. Michael Beasley made it very difficult to find Cousins in the post. And he is not close to Green in terms of defensiv presence.
Question is, if we can achieve a well balanced team. With Cousins post play will always be one of our weapons offensively. But we cant rely on it entirely, cause teams will find ways to take it away or make it less effective.

That's just dumb.

Michael Beasley fouled the hell out of Cousins that all Cuz was able to do was put up 27pts 17rebs 3ast on 10-17 from the field. In fact if anything it would be an object lesson on the effect of true greatness. Yes, very cute, Michael Beasley. Splat anyway.

If you think teams can guard Demarcus Cousins with a SF, let alone 1 on 1...SMH. He would quite literally average 30ppg. At least.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

If you don't understand that concept, you don't understand the entire history of NBA basketball. Or even non-NBA basketball.

No, what you don't understand is that frequently this mythical "real" #1 option aren't crowned as "real" until they win, after the fact. What can and what cannot win an NBA championship keeps being redefined throughout the history of the game. A shooting guard couldn't be your best player, and then Jordan happened. Need to have a superstar, but then there's the 04 Pistons and 14 Spurs. Can't win with a jumpshooting big, and then Dirk wins it all. Can't win playing smallball, until Lebron. A superstar jumpshooter can't win, but then Curry might win it this year. Feeble attempts to create a model based on a game that has evolved through several eras and is almost unrecognizeable by the way it plays today when compared to past times are always going to leave you behind the curve.

The only things every NBA championship team in history has had in common was a great offense, a great defense, and a ****-ton of luck. Now what has made a great offense and a great defense has largely depended on the era. It certainly used to be true that winning without a great isolation player was damn near impossible. But that was before the defensive rules changed and NBA offenses adapted. The NBA is no longer an isolation league. The zone defense rules have killed it. Teams have to move the ball, use creative offensive sets, pick-and-rolls, dribble hand-offs, and space the floor. You can have a great offense without great isolation players. Now, there is still a place for isolation-based players in this league. You just have to disguise it better through your offensive sets and you better space the floor with some damn good shooters.

I don't know if Gasol and Randolph together are ever going to win a championship together. I do know this current iteration of Memphis' team will not get it done. And it has nothing to do with whether Gasol or Randolph are this amorphous "real #1" concept. Nobody's a "real" #1 until they win and everyone is rushing to anoint them after the fact. Gasol and Randolph as a tandem are good enough to offensively control the most valuable real estate on the basketball court, the paint. They are both good players with their back to the basket and can both pass the ball. A great offensive team would leverage these two guys to generate a healthy amount of three pointers. But they can't. They don't have the shooting horses to do that. And so, year-in and year-out, Randolph and Gasol fight the good fight, but can't beat three or four defenders by themselves. So they lose. It has nothing to do with how good Gasol or Randolph are. Put Cousins in the same situation and he struggles too. Hell, there are maybe three players in NBA history wouldn't struggle there, Shaq, Kareem and maybe Wilt.

Instead of thinking about whether either Zach or Marc look like one of the 90s centers, or whether they meet the criteria of a "real" #1 guy that is so old and arbitrary its practically fossilized, the Grizzlies should think about what they can put around a Randolph/Gasol tandem to take them to the next level. Every year they are league leaders in points in the paint per 100 possessions, every year they are elite defensively, and every year they are right there in the second round or Conference Finals. They need to look at how modern defenses work and give their interior duo some breathing room to operate. Randoph and Gasol are good enough, just not good enough to do it without better shooting.

 

[Bricklayer]

No, what you don't understand is that frequently this mythical "real" #1 option aren't crowned as "real" until they win, after the fact. What can and what cannot win an NBA championship keeps being redefined throughout the history of the game. A shooting guard couldn't be your best player, and then Jordan happened. Need to have a superstar, but then there's the 04 Pistons and 14 Spurs. Can't win with a jumpshooting big, and then Dirk wins it all. Can't win playing smallball, until Lebron. A superstar jumpshooter can't win, but then Curry might win it this year. Feeble attempts to create a model based on a game that has evolved through several eras and is almost unrecognizeable by the way it plays today when compared to past times are always going to leave you behind the curve.

The irony here is you seem intentionally caught between over specification and over generalization. The lessons are eternal, and they are consistent:

Note:
A shooting guard COULD not be the best player on a championship team...until a SG entered the league who did not play like a SG and provided the same advantage a big man did.

Dirk COULD not win as a jumpshooting big...which is why he did not win until he had largely eschewed the threes and turned into one of the most unstoppable high post scorers of all time with a goto move of an 18 foot 1 legged turnaround jumper.

Calling LeBron small at 6'8" 260 is a stretch. He's the freak that proves the rule. The "SF" as big as a PF that let's you cheat. He was at least as big as Webber, bigger than Barkley


1) You need to win the game inside. Get inside on offense, defend the rim on defense. In the good ole days, attacking inside meant a big man. Its still the most direct route to the goal. But with the advent of the uberatheltic slasher class of guards, a new way to accomplish the same goal arose. There has never been a perimeter player who keyed his title from outside. LeBron, Jordan, Wade, they slashed and burned, posted, attacked the middle just like the bigs do.

2) You need to be able to function in the halfcourt. The games slow down, get tough. You can't plan on running and dancing your way to a title. Because of this you almost need an all time great on the roster. A single freak occurence in 2004 aside, every single title in the last 35 years has involved at least 1 Top 30 all time player, and all but a handful a Top 10 all time guy. Magic/Kareem, Moses/Dr. J, Bird, Zeke, Jordan/Pippen, Hakeem/Drexler, Duncan/Admiral, Shaq/Kobe, 2004, Shaq/Wade, Kobe, Garnett, Dirk, LeBron/Wade. All time great options who could all attack and overwhelm defenses individually, and pick them apart.

If you plan on violating any of these rules you had damn well better be Detroit, and you had better defend the hell out of the ball. In a down year for great teams it seems no stretch at all to say the team that defends best is going to have a shot even if its not built correctly on offense.

P.S. There is exactly one team in the last 37 years where Zach and Gasol could make any claim to being in the class of the title team's best players. They are not good enough. If they were to pull it off this year it would be an indictment of the opposing teams. I hope they do, but they are also ran level talents. Every year they get bounced by better ones. Its no surprise to anybody who's watched the NBA long enough.

 

[hrdboild]

Just wanted to add onto what Brick said...

One point that's often overlooked about the ensemble team Detroit won with is that while they didn't have an all-time great offensive player, they did have an all-time great defender in Ben Wallace and he was at the absolute peak of his abilities the year they won. They dominated other teams so completely on defense that their offensive shortcomings didn't hold them back, or they didn't for one year anyway. They also were just another also-ran until they brought in Rasheed Wallace, the elusive and rare two way big man who could really shoot and really play defense. Trying to duplicate that team's success is a lot harder than people think it is.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

Note:
A shooting guard COULD not be the best player on a championship team...until a SG entered the league who did not play like a SG and provided the same advantage a big man did.

Dirk COULD not win as a jumpshooting big...which is why he did not win until he had largely eschewed the threes and turned into one of the most unstoppable high post scorers of all time with a goto move of an 18 foot 1 legged turnaround jumper.

Calling LeBron small at 6'8" 260 is a stretch. He's the freak that proves the rule. The "SF" as big as a PF that let's you cheat.

1) You need to win the game inside. Get inside on offense, defend the rim on defense. In the good ole days, attacking inside meant a big man. Its still the most direct route to the goal. But with the advent of the uberatheltic slasher class of guards, a new way to accomplish the same goal arose. There has never been a perimeter player who keyed his title from outside. LeBron, Jordan, Wade, they slashed and burned, posted, attacked the middle just like the bigs do.

2) You need to be able to function in the halfcourt. The games slow down, get tough. You can't plan on running and dancing your way to a title. Because of this you almost need an all time great on the roster. A single freak occurence in 2004 aside, every single title in the last 35 years has involved at least 1 Top 30 all time player, and all but a handful a Top 10 all time guy. Magic/Kareem, Moses/Dr. J, Bird, Zeke, Jordan/Pippen, Hakeem/Drexler, Duncan/Admiral, Shaq/Kobe, 2004, Shaq/Wade, Kobe, Garnett, Dirk, LeBron/Wade. All time great options who could all attack and overwhelm defenses individually, and pick them apart.

If you plan on violating any of these rules you had damn well better be Detroit, and you had better defend the hell out of the ball. In a down year for great teams it seems no stretch at all to say the team that defends best is going to have a shot even if its not built correctly on offense.

The biggest irony here is that you commit the same logical mistakes that stat nerds are accused of making all the time. You fail to account for all of the variables and assume that in the short run results will look like what they do in the long run.

Your mistake is that you fail to account that the way the game is played has vastly changed across eras. The 1960s NBA doesn't look like the 1990s NBA, and even different still from the 2010s NBA. In that vast 50 year history of the league, there have been major rule changes introduced, like the three point line and the elimination of zone defense rules. The model you propose, that supposedly cuts across every single era, is inherently unstable because of the changes that have revolutionized the landscape. You still fail to fully appreciate how different the league is today; its like someone stuck you in a time capsule from the 90s.

Your model says that a top 30 player is required to win a championship, yet a championship is required for a player to reach that echelon. Who had Dirk as a top 30 all time player before 2011? If KG gets injured in 2008 and he doesn't win a championship, he gets knocked off that pedestal too. If Webber wins one with us in 02, all of a sudden he's in that echelon too. Its a chicken-and-egg situation; the championship often makes the player as much as the player makes the championship. Your rules are already crumbling; how do the Spurs fit into your model? What about the Warriors if they win this year?

Just look at the caveats you have crafted over the years to keep your floundering model treading water:

-The hyperathletic wing exception to the big man rule
-Dirk couldn't win as a jumpshooting big, except that he developed an unstoppable jumpshot (this is a bizarre one)
-Smallball doesn't work, except if you have a big strong small forward like Lebron you can win with a Bosh at center.
-The 2004 Pistons exception
-Whatever exception you use for the 2014 Spurs

The biggest issue is that frequently you're making these exceptions after they already happen. The model has terrible predictive value. It overexcludes because of its rigidity. At the end of the day, you're the one saying something can't win, until it does. Again and again. You're trapped in the four corners of your rules, rules which you have to refine everytime something comes around that doesn't fit in. I await the next exception to your rules if the Warriors win the next title.

Randoph and Gasol don't have to fit into a model in order to be the core of a successful team. They have the defense and the interior gravity. They need a shooter to take the top off opposing elite defenses from packing the paint. That and some luck equals an NBA champion.

 

[Prince_XY]

Just look at the caveats you have crafted over the years to keep your floundering model treading water:

-The hyperathletic wing exception to the big man rule
-Dirk couldn't win as a jumpshooting big, except that he developed an unstoppable jumpshot (this is a bizarre one)
-Smallball doesn't work, except if you have a big strong small forward like Lebron you can win with a Bosh at center.
-The 2004 Pistons exception
-Whatever exception you use for the 2014 Spurs

The biggest issue is that frequently you're making these exceptions after they already happen. The model has terrible predictive value. It overexcludes because of its rigidity. At the end of the day, you're the one saying something can't win, until it does. Again and again. You're trapped in the four corners of your rules, rules which you have to refine everytime something comes around that doesn't fit in. I await the next exception to your rules if the Warriors win the next title.

I agree. But I give credit to Brick for he can usually convince most of us in this board to go along with some of his line of thinking however obsolete they are. That is some talent.

Brick called it first that the guard dominate Warriors will get spank/blasted by the post-playing Griz. I know the series is not over yet, but clearly the Warriors had more than held their own against the smash-mouth defense and post-play of the Grizzlies. Leading the series 3-2, it is safe to say that the Warriors did not get blasted. But then of course, the guard dominate Warriors and the recent state of the smash-mouth and post-playing Grizzlies are again one of the exceptions to the rule.

 

[KingsFanGER]

That's just dumb.

Michael Beasley fouled the hell out of Cousins that all Cuz was able to do was put up 27pts 17rebs 3ast on 10-17 from the field. In fact if anything it would be an object lesson on the effect of true greatness. Yes, very cute, Michael Beasley. Splat anyway.

If you think teams can guard Demarcus Cousins with a SF, let alone 1 on 1...SMH. He would quite literally average 30ppg. At least.

Sigh......nope it's not dumb. Btw. nice way to start to a conversation again.

Box Score:

Beasley 18 Pts., 7 Reb., 2 Steals, 1 Block, 1 TO, 9-17 shooting and a +/- of +10
Cousins 27 Pts, 17 Reb., 2 Steals, 1 Block, 5 TO, 3 Assists, 10-17 shooting and a +/- of -6

Statwise this is a clear advantage for DMC, mostly because he dominated the glass and went to the foul line. On the first look it fits your description.
Now we take into account, that the Heat were shorthanded, Haslem could play only 10 minutes and they still won the game in OT. In fact they outscored us in the second half big time and went on a major run in the 4th with a lineup with Beasley playing center and Walker PF, that set up in a zone on defense.

So I watched the 4th again (sorry but I won't go through the whole game again).

Play by play with Beasley and DMC involved:

1. DMC in the High Post - Beasley forces the cross court pass as part of a quick double team.
2. Beasley forces DMC to step outside and drives by him for 2
3. Block Beasley vs DMC, Foul on Walker called before, DMC 2 FT's but no And-1
4. Layup Beasley out of the pick&roll involving Cousins
5. Beasley denies Post-Entry-Pass to DMC by fronting him
6. Offensive Rebound Beasley, Putback +2
7. Beasley denies Post-Entry-Pass to DMC, draws the Charge on McCallum, who tried a desperation drive, because he couldn't get the ball to DMC
8. Beasley denies Post-Entry-Pass to DMC and gets a steal
9. Beasley denies Post-Entry-Pass to DMC
10. DMC scores on an out of bounds play with a quick spin versus Beasley +2
11. Beasley denies Post-Entry-Pass to DMC
12. successful Post-Entry-Pass, 5th Foul Beasley
13. successful Post-Entry-Pass, 6th Foul Beasley

Keep in mind the Heat outscored us and came back for a double digit deficit in the 4th. DMC scored 4 Points from the field in the Quarter. Beasley took advantage of his quickness versus DMC on the offensive end scoring 6 points in the 4th.
And now read my previous post again and notice, that I didn't say, that Beasley can defend Cousins 1vs1. Of course Beasley is done, when Cousins manages to catch the ball and has the time to make a move before the double team comes in.
But in this case the Heat went very small and therefore very mobile and set up in a Zone to collaps on Cousins as soon as he manages to get a pass.
The thing was, that Beasley was very successful to deny Cousins the ball by fronting him and relying on the Double team as soon as a pass was successful. He denied every entry pass to Cousins until the last 2 plays involving him before fouling out. Spoelstra forced the ball out of DMC hands, denied us to feed him in the post and take advantage of his size and Beasley, who is not known as a lockdown defender, got the job done.
If we take this game as a possible blue print versus DMC, we could come to the conclusion, that the post game will not always be there for us, that it may be beneficial for teams to give small, mobile defenders a go versus us (I think this is the way the Warriors blow us out of the building too) and that we need more balance in our offense, because of modern era zone defense, quicker players and players able to draw DMC out of the paint on offense.
And that's pretty much, what HighFlyingMonkey already wrote. The game has changed....and the Kings need to find a way to adapt to it and maybe learn from the success and failures of other NBA teams.
This is why the Series Grizzlies vs Warriors is pretty interesting for me.

 

[Gilles]

All I remember from that game is Beasley fouling Boogie for 5 seconds, then Cuz being hit with offensive foul.

You also mention zone like it's some insurmountable problem. Being a Kings fan you might think that way, but inability to expose zone with passing and movement was bordering on incompetence. Swinging the ball and changing the angle on entry pass makes fronting useless, but it depends on movement and quick execution, not standing for 5 seconds waiting for small opening.

 

[KingsFanGER]

All I remember from that game is Beasley fouling Boogie for 5 seconds, then Cuz being hit with offensive foul.

You also mention zone like it's some insurmountable problem. Being a Kings fan you might think that way, but inability to expose zone with passing and movement was bordering on incompetence. Swinging the ball and changing the angle on entry pass makes fronting useless, but it depends on movement and quick execution, not standing for 5 seconds waiting for small opening.

Yes I was angry about this foul too.
And I played basketball for years over here in Germany. Of course not at a professional level, but zone defense is pretty common in european basketball. So I encountered it most likely well before the contemporary NBA players.
Partly zone defense is the reason, why so many european players are solid jumpshooters.
I did not want to make the statement, that a zone is unbeatable. But you need to have the tools to beat it and the experience how to deal with it.
The Kings will encounter those kind of defensive gameplans until they find a way to expose it. And the easiest way to beat a zone is from the outside. And this whole board is basically on the same track - Kings need better shooting.
Of course it's not the only way to beat a zone and even with their last season roster the Kings could have done a way better job against a zone.

Btw. maybe a good read on how to play against a zone:

http://www.fiba.com/asp_includes/download.asp?file_id=483

 

[Kingster]

Curry shooting like trash. Dubs get a blowout win with...... defense!!!

Or Memphis loses without enough offense.

 

[Kingster]

This should tell us something

I think it tells a lot of people that we need WCS in the draft.

 

[Kingster]

I think nobody can deny that defense wins championships. Every contender focuses on a strong defense first.
What's interesting to me is, that one could argue, that the way to play defense changed quite a bit. The Warriors get away defending maybe the toughest front court duo in the NBA with tweeners like Green and Barnes. The make up for their lack of size with quick double teams and in this game 5 caused havoc for the Grizzlies gameplan. Gasol+Randolph didn't score at all in the second quarter. They had a tough time catching the ball, getting in position and finishing.
I think Captain Bill is right on target with his claims about a dynamic offense still allowing a great defense. And this puts the whole discussion about "Jazz" and the incompetence of Vivek and PDA to value defense correctly in a slightly different perspective from my point of view.
Therefore I'm really curious, what kind of offense and defense we will be watching next year. And I'm looking forward to it.

I don't think that platitude gets you anywhere. If that phrase is taken literally, you'd put together a team of Tony Allen's at every position - the 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. By the way, that would mean Cousins would go. (You'd want to trade him for a better defensive center, but one not as good on offense). How far would that hypothetical team take you?

 

[Gilles]

Have you watched DMC last year? He's not far from being Tony Allen of centers, i.e. can defend anyone with size. And his team defense is treading towards top5 in the league WITH the offensive load he's carrying.

As for your previous remark you miss the fact, that Grizzlies field two bigs AND Tony Allen, whose offensive game is even worse - WCS can set screens/participate in roll action AND also cut, while Tony only does the second, and with his speed and length WCS might be better even at that.

 

[Kingster]

Have you watched DMC last year? He's not far from being Tony Allen of centers, i.e. can defend anyone with size. And his team defense is treading towards top5 in the league WITH the offensive load he's carrying.

As for your previous remark you miss the fact, that Grizzlies field two bigs AND Tony Allen, whose offensive game is even worse - WCS can set screens/participate in roll action AND also cut, while Tony only does the second, and with his speed and length WCS might be better even at that.

Not far is not far enough. Surely, we can get a better defensive center (and one who scores a lot less) if defense truly wins championships. Trade Cousins now!

If defense wins championships who cares if Allen's offense is worse than WCS. If defense wins championships, then make the Cousins for Tony Allen trade and then draft WCS as your center and we're one step closer to a championship!

 

[Gilles]

Ok, you win. Trade Cousins now! But would Grizzlies bite? First team All-Defense after all!!!

 

[Bricklayer]

Sigh......nope it's not dumb. Btw. nice way to start to a conversation again.

Box Score:

Beasley 18 Pts., 7 Reb., 2 Steals, 1 Block, 1 TO, 9-17 shooting and a +/- of +10
Cousins 27 Pts, 17 Reb., 2 Steals, 1 Block, 5 TO, 3 Assists, 10-17 shooting and a +/- of -6

Statwise this is a clear advantage for DMC, mostly because he dominated the glass and went to the foul line. On the first look it fits your description.
Now we take into account, that the Heat were shorthanded, Haslem could play only 10 minutes and they still won the game in OT. In fact they outscored us in the second half big time and went on a major run in the 4th with a lineup with Beasley playing center and Walker PF, that set up in a zone on defense.

So I watched the 4th again (sorry but I won't go through the whole game again).

Play by play with Beasley and DMC involved:

1. DMC in the High Post - Beasley forces the cross court pass as part of a quick double team.
2. Beasley forces DMC to step outside and drives by him for 2
3. Block Beasley vs DMC, Foul on Walker called before, DMC 2 FT's but no And-1
4. Layup Beasley out of the pick&roll involving Cousins
5. Beasley denies Post-Entry-Pass to DMC by fronting him
6. Offensive Rebound Beasley, Putback +2
7. Beasley denies Post-Entry-Pass to DMC, draws the Charge on McCallum, who tried a desperation drive, because he couldn't get the ball to DMC
8. Beasley denies Post-Entry-Pass to DMC and gets a steal
9. Beasley denies Post-Entry-Pass to DMC
10. DMC scores on an out of bounds play with a quick spin versus Beasley +2
11. Beasley denies Post-Entry-Pass to DMC
12. successful Post-Entry-Pass, 5th Foul Beasley
13. successful Post-Entry-Pass, 6th Foul Beasley

Keep in mind the Heat outscored us and came back for a double digit deficit in the 4th. DMC scored 4 Points from the field in the Quarter. Beasley took advantage of his quickness versus DMC on the offensive end scoring 6 points in the 4th.
And now read my previous post again and notice, that I didn't say, that Beasley can defend Cousins 1vs1. Of course Beasley is done, when Cousins manages to catch the ball and has the time to make a move before the double team comes in.
But in this case the Heat went very small and therefore very mobile and set up in a Zone to collaps on Cousins as soon as he manages to get a pass.
The thing was, that Beasley was very successful to deny Cousins the ball by fronting him and relying on the Double team as soon as a pass was successful. He denied every entry pass to Cousins until the last 2 plays involving him before fouling out. Spoelstra forced the ball out of DMC hands, denied us to feed him in the post and take advantage of his size and Beasley, who is not known as a lockdown defender, got the job done.
If we take this game as a possible blue print versus DMC, we could come to the conclusion, that the post game will not always be there for us, that it may be beneficial for teams to give small, mobile defenders a go versus us (I think this is the way the Warriors blow us out of the building too) and that we need more balance in our offense, because of modern era zone defense, quicker players and players able to draw DMC out of the paint on offense.
And that's pretty much, what HighFlyingMonkey already wrote. The game has changed....and the Kings need to find a way to adapt to it and maybe learn from the success and failures of other NBA teams.
This is why the Series Grizzlies vs Warriors is pretty interesting for me.

I do find it incredibly odd that you would be so committed to a blatantly ridiculous proposition that you would go back to cite 1 quarter of a 1 late season game between 2 lottery teams as evidence that a leaguewide practice is about to spring up. Odder still since it was such an incredible outlier for the player involved -- quite literally the best defensive stretch Michael Beaseley may have played in his entire life. And that it still resulted in Cousins notching 8pts 4rebs in the quarter, fouling Beaseley out, and having a chance to win the game at the buzzer with a tip follow of a Rudy miss.

1) ignoring the unsustainable over the top inspired play by Beaseley, struggling with post entry passes says as much about your guards as it does anything else. Miller was out there that quarter, so were the 2 Macs in a mini lineup. Collectively the three of them did nothing. Having actual starting veteran guards healthy and in the lineup makes those passes much more likely to complete.

2) every time you type above "with help from a double" or "the zone collapsed" you seem to be under the misimpression this is a BAD thing and evidence that we should have stopped what we were doing. Quite to the opposite, that is exactly what you WANT to happen.

One of the greatest blindspots of people who don't understand post play is that they think its about the scoring. it certainly can be. You guard Cuz with a SF for extended periods and he's going to crush you himself. But that is not the great advantage. This ties in of course to the stupid claims that all of a sudden outside shooting is how you win. No. The great value of post play is precisely that if forces defenses to collapse on the post player if he is good enough. This breaks the defensive pressure on everybody else. If a pass is then made, somebody is open. Often multiple somebodies. Along with the P&R, which oddly people seem to understand better, its one of the very core principles of all offense. And its exactly the same idea as having a great slasher.

here's the great post player threat, same as a great slasher threat:
1) you guard him 1 on 1, and he gets a shot attempt up from close to the basket, the highest percentage spots on the floor

or

2) you double or collapse on the post player/driver, at which point you have left other players open in order to stop the interior player.

Its Scylla and Charybdis. Especially if you want to try to stop Cousins with a SF. That's such a blatantly bad idea that you would have to come quick in order to sustain it. Marc Gasol...maybe not so much. He's not an elite offensive player. Sometimes he'll hurt, you, sometimes not.

 

[IfAt1st]

Gasol certainly isn't, and that's been exposed here as Golden State has turned him into a goto guy, and his efficiency has plummeted.

Stick Cuz in that Memphis lineup instead of Gasol and see what happens if they try to guard him with SFs.

(Gasol has been horrible the past 2 games when the Grizzlies needed him.)

But the issue here is how would the refs call the interior play?

I'm afraid the entire NBA is opposed to calling fouls on interior play anymore - there has been so much absurd contact and physical defense whenever anyone gets in the paint, it's ridiculous. Half the time the ball is knocked loose because of the flailing/chopping hands of the defenders.
I can't stand this kind of defense. It's horrible to watch the refs allow the ballhandler to be hacked to crap if they are in the paint! I watch a guy driving in the paint nowadays, and I say to myself "well - that's the last thing you should do! Impending turnover!" and it frequently happens.

Contrast that with how little contact it takes to get a foul called against a ballhandler on the perimeter.
Little body bumps and hand-checks are called out there, whereas huge bodyslams, hacks, and near-assaults are allowed inside.
It's truly asinine, what the NBA and referees have done to the game.

Case in point -
Does anyone know what the actual rule (or in-practice rule) for dislodging a defender is anymore?
If a big guy outweighs a defender, can he back him down, repeatedly dribbling and dislodge his man to get closer to the basket? It's 50-50 when Demarcus has infrequently tried it this season, and it's kind of critical because if a heavier ballhandler can't push a defender back through strength than it makes the big men of the game irrelevant, if a lighter and faster defender can simply position himself or flop and get the charge call when there's a mis-match.
Hell, it seems like defensive mismatches aren't bad if it's the lighter defender vs the heavier/bigger balllhandler. It's only when it's the big defender vs a guard that it's actually a mismatch to take advantage of nowadays.

If Demarcus was in this series, it would completely depend on how the refs call the interior play.
And I don't believe that the NBA wants big guys to be battling inside, so they would foul Demarcus out until he becomes yet another neutered big-guy who just sets up the little guys to bomb from 3 (because that's apparently what the NBA thinks sells to people better).

 

[Bricklayer]

On the amusing claim that #1 options are obsolete...this shouldn't even have to be done, but the power of delusion runs strong amongst the we want the game to have magically changed so we're going to talk it into being crowd.

So I'm going to use per 100 stats here. Per 100 stats are simply stats per 100 possessions. More accurate than per minute stats, which are in themselves more accurate than per game stats. Per 100 stats take minutes out of the equation, and they take pace differences out of the equation. So you get a real clear look at who is piling up numbers the fastest, all things considered.

Note: historically guys who score 30pts/per 100 are stars/elite scorers. Guys who score 35+ are superstars/MVP candidates. 40+pts/per 100 is very rare air occupied mostly by Jordan and with 1 or 2 Lebron, Kobe and Durant years of late. And this year, Westbrook. Anyway, 35+ is clear superstar #1 territory. And 30+ scoops up most other stars with some claim there. There are basically no unworthy 35+ guys, its too massive. They are all #1s. But occasionally a lesser player can sneak across that 30+ line.

For illustrative purposes let's look at the entire list of 30+pt/per 100 guys for the last two years:

2014-15
Westbrook 41.1
Harden 37.0
James 36.3
Wade 35.7
Cousins 35.5
Curry 35.5
Davis 35.4
---------------
Aldridge 33.7
Thompson 33.2
---------------
Williams 31.9
Thomas 31.8
Griffin 31.6
Bosh 31.5
Irving 31.0
Rose 30.6
Lopez 30.5
Crawford 30.1

2013-14
Durant 41.8
James 37.9
Anthony 37.7
Cousins 35.7
Love 35.4
-----------------
Nowitzki 33.9
Griffin 33.7
Harden 33.2
Curry 32.8
Aldridge 32.5
Jefferson 32.4
George 31.1
DeRozan 31.0
Davis 30.8
-------------------
Young 30.7
Crawford 30.6
Irving 30.5
Wade 30.5


Its really an accurate way to see those #1s. You can see the absolute #1s at 35+, where it begins to muddle a bit with some #2s creeping in, and then the low 30s where some gunning 6th men creep over the line. And the overall numbers of players at those levels are right in the same range as they have always been for decades. And these are the guys who routinely triumph in the playoffs. This year, we are probably going to see either a Curry(+Thompson) vs. Blake (+CP3) or Harden WCF. LeBron will be taking on also rans in the East, although injuries have ruined his team so the also rans might have a chance. Meanwhile the Grizz's closest thing is Gasol, 30th best in the league at 27.4. Last year the Spurs started a lot of nonsense when they beat the #1 and #2 guys (Durant and James) back to back to win the title.

And the great thing about Per 100s is that they absolutely translate over eras. You can clearly see the same sorts of elites identified season after season. Here is the list for 2000-01:>

2000-01
Iverson 39.3
O'Neal 38.0
Stackhouse 37.5
Carter 36.7
Bryant 36.4
-----------------
Malone 34.7
McGrady 34.5
Pierce 34.4
Webber 34.0
-----------------
Marbury 32.7
Robinson 31.0
Duncan 30.7
Jamison 30.7
Allen 30.1

Iverson and O'Neal/Bryant met in the Finals. 10 years before that:

1990-91
Jordan 42.7 (HOF)
King 37.2 (HOF)
Barkley 37.1 (HOF)
Pierce 36.8
Malone 36.4 (HOF)
Ewing 35.1 (HOF)
---------------
Wilkens 33.2 (HOF)
Robinson 33.1 (HOF)
---------------
Johnson 32.2
Adams 31.5
Carr 31.1
Woolrdige 30.8
Campbell 30.2
Miller 30.2 (HOF)

Jordan won those Finals over...might have been the Pistons that year? Notice too how accurately it predicts HOF chances, notable Cuz is already in that top group. But the group always stays the same size and has similar per 100 numbers over eras, and that's the group that your title winners ALMOST always come from. Almost.

Going to go year by year here all the way back to 1990, with the per 100 scoring of the top options of NBA Champions

2015: ?
2014: Parker (28.7)
2013: James (37.5)
2012: James (38.1)
2011: Nowitzki (35.3)
2010: Bryant (35.9)
2009: Bryant (37.8)
2008: Garnett (30.3)+Pierce (28.8)
2007: Ginobili (32.2)+Duncan (31.4)+Parker (30.6)
2006: Wade (37.0)
2005: Duncan (32.9)
2004: Hamilton (27.1)+Billups(26.1)
2003: Duncan (31.6)
2002: O'Neal (39.2)+Bryant (34.4)
2001:O'Neal (38.0)+Bryant(36.4)
2000: O'Neal (38.1)
1999: Duncan (29.9)
1998: Jordan (40.0)
1997: Jordan (41.8)
1996: Jordan (42.5)
1995: Olajuwon (35.8)
1994: Olajuwon (33.7)
1993: Jordan (43.0)
1992: Jordan (39.4)
1991: Jordan (42.7)
1990: Aguirre (27.9) Dumars (26.3) Thomas (25.4)

So obviously yes, the #1 option is now obsolete since the Spurs provided a 1yr break from it with one of those periodic "Teams" that crop up about once every 10 to 15 years to break the rules. Never mind that every team with a chance remaining this season except the badly struggling Hawks once again has traditional #1/Top 10 players leading them.

 

[captain bill]

I second this.

Or maybe first it since I have been callign for it for a while.

Anyway, I view a Warriors loss as valuable to the Kings franchise, since we are a bunch of fad chasing numbnuts desperately in need of an object lesson on what wins in playoff basketball.

Quoted for posterity.

Admirable job trying to spin your way out of this, though. Good job, good effort.

 

[Kings Faithful]

The Hawks are the only team left that I feel ok rooting for.... The Warriors? Ew.... bad for the Kings if they win. Clippers? Flopping wussies..... Cavs? Lebron, bleck. Rockets? Harden and Howard.... no thanks.

 

[Bricklayer]

Quoted for posterity.

Admirable job trying to spin your way out of this, though. Good job, good effort.

Spin my way out of what? I stand by that statement.

Here's a cute thought, either a) reread the statement, and understand it was not a prediction, but rather a wish. or b) stow it.

 

[Merdiesel]

Stick Cuz in that Memphis lineup instead of Gasol and see what happens if they try to guard him with SFs. Memphis challenges with style, but minus that star offensive player, they can be shut down when it really matters. Always their Achilles, and they may be going down to defeat here again because of it after making things interesting.

After this round, how many people idiots out there are sticking with Gasol as the number one center in the game? He looked terrible this series. No touch, bad turnovers and just soft as can be. Cousins would have completely dominated that GS defense... This post season has opened my eyes quite a bit, I'm convinced that we are seriously 3 solid players away from sniffing the playoffs next year.

 

[Sac.1989]

^^ we were on the cusp last year and honestly the angst of so many of us towards the FO isnt standard fans thinking we can run this place better. Seriously we are not that far off if we do this right.

3/5 of it is style of play and 2/5 of it is personnel and staying healthy. Of vital importance are a defensive presence in the paint and a consistent SG. If we can snag a solid 6th man type bench player then we are there - stretch 4 perhaps.

NOTE: this is pursuant to the 3/5 style of play being founded on our strengths and not this nba 3.0 rubbish.

 

[KingMilz]

The Hawks are the only team left that I feel ok rooting for.... The Warriors? Ew.... bad for the Kings if they win. Clippers? Flopping wussies..... Cavs? Lebron, bleck. Rockets? Harden and Howard.... no thanks.

It's not bad for us in any way if the Warriors win, it will show that passing the ball and playing defense wins games hopefully that will actually lead to some trades where we get rid of ball stoppers and get players who create for others and can hit an outside shot while at worst competing on the other end of the floor.

 

[KingMilz]

After this round, how many people idiots out there are sticking with Gasol as the number one center in the game? He looked terrible this series. No touch, bad turnovers and just soft as can be. Cousins would have completely dominated that GS defense... This post season has opened my eyes quite a bit, I'm convinced that we are seriously 3 solid players away from sniffing the playoffs next year.

How thew **** do you know any of this? Cousins sucked against GSW and has been outplayed by Bogut nearly has entire career. Let Cousins actually get to the playoffs before making up hypothetical crap which has zero merit to it. Man some of the assumptions on here are getting ridiculous the fact Memphis even won 2 games against a team as good and lethal as the Warriors imo is impressive.

Cousins struggled against Festus Ezeli since Festus has been in the NBA which is the Warriors back up C but yet he would have dominated the Warriors in the playoffs where the defense is better and smarter.......yeah sure.

 

[KingsFanGER]

I do find it incredibly odd that you would be so committed to a blatantly ridiculous proposition that you would go back to cite 1 quarter of a 1 late season game between 2 lottery teams as evidence that a leaguewide practice is about to spring up. Odder still since it was such an incredible outlier for the player involved -- quite literally the best defensive stretch Michael Beaseley may have played in his entire life. And that it still resulted in Cousins notching 8pts 4rebs in the quarter, fouling Beaseley out, and having a chance to win the game at the buzzer with a tip follow of a Rudy miss.

1) ignoring the unsustainable over the top inspired play by Beaseley, struggling with post entry passes says as much about your guards as it does anything else. Miller was out there that quarter, so were the 2 Macs in a mini lineup. Collectively the three of them did nothing. Having actual starting veteran guards healthy and in the lineup makes those passes much more likely to complete.

2) every time you type above "with help from a double" or "the zone collapsed" you seem to be under the misimpression this is a BAD thing and evidence that we should have stopped what we were doing. Quite to the opposite, that is exactly what you WANT to happen.

One of the greatest blindspots of people who don't understand post play is that they think its about the scoring. it certainly can be. You guard Cuz with a SF for extended periods and he's going to crush you himself. But that is not the great advantage. This ties in of course to the stupid claims that all of a sudden outside shooting is how you win. No. The great value of post play is precisely that if forces defenses to collapse on the post player if he is good enough. This breaks the defensive pressure on everybody else. If a pass is then made, somebody is open. Often multiple somebodies. Along with the P&R, which oddly people seem to understand better, its one of the very core principles of all offense. And its exactly the same idea as having a great slasher.

here's the great post player threat, same as a great slasher threat:
1) you guard him 1 on 1, and he gets a shot attempt up from close to the basket, the highest percentage spots on the floor

or

2) you double or collapse on the post player/driver, at which point you have left other players open in order to stop the interior player.

Its Scylla and Charybdis. Especially if you want to try to stop Cousins with a SF. That's such a blatantly bad idea that you would have to come quick in order to sustain it. Marc Gasol...maybe not so much. He's not an elite offensive player. Sometimes he'll hurt, you, sometimes not.

Ok so one quarter as an example of how teams could possibly play DMC on defense is odd (and btw. the starting point of this argument was your criticism, that DMC couldn't be defended by smaller players the way Gasol is in the current series and not to make the statement that it should be a leaguewide trend to play a SF at center), but accusing our entire FO of incompetence, demanding them to get fired, getting all hyped up on the hyperbole train of "they want Nellieball!!" etc. based on a mini run of 9-6 games under Malone ignoring everything else is a great way to start an argument? The major problem is, that you have a very blinkered view on the game of basketball and everything beside your simplistic terms of "defense and big man wins"-rhetoric is false from your point of view.
Anyone watching and/or playing basketball understands the mechanics of a double team and defensive rotations. That's basic basketball wisdom and really nothing, that you should accuse other posters of not understanding.
But what you ignore is that a double team of course presents the opportunity of someone to get open, but that it's up to the player, who gets doubled to find this guy in time and on target. The safest way to pass out of a double team is to pass the ball right before the double team arrives. Once the pressure of the double team is in place it becomes much harder to get off a clean pass. Therefore running a big man constantly into double teams is putting him in risky situations. Of course with a great passing big it's a calculated risk, but the array for mistakes is wide enough, that the statement "you want double teams to happen" is shaky at best.
In fact great contemporary defensive teams like the Warriors or the recent Heat teams with Lebron, Wade and Bosh used quicker, mobile lineups to apply as much pressure on the opponent as possible. They trap, they double, they literally swarm the opponent, forcing him into risky situations and forcing turnovers. And forcing turnovers is the whole point of this approach, because every live ball turnover will fuel their transition game and this means open 3pt shots for shooters like Curry, Klay, Barnes etc. or layups and dunks for the likes of Lebron or Wade.
The main point of any offense, that goes up against these teams is to keep the turnovers down. Therefore you try to make the safest play possible. Wether this is feeding the ball into the post and drawing double teams to find open shooters/cutters with a player like DMC remains to be seen, once we get into the playoffs and face such a team over a 7 game series. But the recent struggles versus the Warriors and the game versus the Heat, where they were able to nearly beat us with a depleted roster and zone defense and the fact, that DMC is as turnover prone as the whole Kings roster, should at least lead to thinking about these kind of defense as a viable approach, that we need to find a way to deal with, instead of looking down on it and simply stating "this won't work, cause Cousins will dominate 1vs1", which is irrelevant, when we have 20 or more turnover and the opponent runs us out of the building.

 

[pdizo916]

Yea, those Grizzles showed the Warriors who's the boss!!

 

[KingMilz]

Yea, those Grizzles showed the Warriors who's the boss!!

They did great to win 2 games (2 in a row as well) imo, the GSW team is just really stacked with great chemistry and they can unleash an atomic bomb on anyone in a 2 mins period which wins them the game no other team has that type of power. They defend at a super high level and they have unmatched nuclear power, to beat the Warriors they have to be completely off and you have to be at your best to win. The Warriors can play average and still run you out of the gym.