Go Grizzlies! (Kings Related)

[gunks]

To hopefully put things into perspective, we shouldn't be talking about what strategy is the best in the NBA, but rather what strategy works best for the Kings and DeMarcus Cousins.

This +10000000

 

[VF21]

To hopefully put things into perspective, we shouldn't be talking about what strategy is the best in the NBA, but rather what strategy works best for the Kings and DeMarcus Cousins.

Abso-freaking-lutely!

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

The inside-out offense that was implemented in the beginning of this season (last season?) worked. In a playoff atmosphere, it might be different (I doubt it), but that offense worked and should be used until it gets broken. Once it gets broken, we make adjustments.

I wouldn't put much stock in that early November beginning, to be frank. It was a great start against great competition, but teams are hardly in midseason form that early, otherwise they'd call it "November form"

Malone-ball always had a ceiling. It would have been interesting to see what that ceiling was, but it was always limited. The Kings were drawing fouls at an unsustainable rate; teams were going to adjust regardless. And while they didn't shoot many threes, McLemore was hitting at a 40+ clip, and Collison/Gay were both around 38%, which is uncertain to continue. Malone also couldn't figure out how to maximize the bench because the offense was so dependent on Boogie.

As an aside, I personally believe it was beyond stupid to fire Malone when they did. Coaching changes rarely bear fruit midseason. You can pin that on front office dysfunction. They tanked the season.

Additionally, using the 90s as learning experiences for inside-out play is valuable for the Sacramento Kings, since inside-out play is currently our best offensive option. We should adjust this inside-out play according to today's game, as Malone did and should have had more time to do, but wasn't given ample opportunity to.

90s ball offers very little guidance to how the Kings should play today. The offense back then was basically walk the ball up, toss it to the superstar/center, and stand around. Not even the Grizzlies do that. Offensive sets have to be far more creative in how they disguise their isolations and generate open three pointers. Standing around isn't going to get it done. The defenses the Kings will have to play in 2015 are radically different from the defenses exhibited in the 90s.

Our offensive sets should not focus on having the 3pt shot as the first option. Opponents will work less if our primary option is the 3pt shot, since we are at best decent at it. They will let us run those sets, and have us miss.

Our offense should build off of the low/high post threat sets in Cousins and Gay. As the opposing defense denies that, then we run counter-sets that can focus on a 3pt shot, mid-range shot, lob, etc. Opponents won't bite on an up-and-under if you don't have a good jump hook.

The offense should focus on getting the best possible shot every time. Cousins' interior gravity opens up the opportunity to be creative on the perimeter, and the Kings should absolutely work that to their advantage. A multifaceted and diverse attack is the most difficult to guard. You press the interior advantage when its appropriate, and kick out for threes when the opportunity presents itself. Other times, use the interior game to run sets aiming to get open threes. If you run the same sets every time, the defense will counter. The key is to be balanced and unpredictable. The Clippers are built around CP3 and Blake Griffin, but still consciously make sure Redick gets involved.

I agree that the current personnel is not suited to this task, but thats where Vlade/PDA need to do their job.

 

[lawlman91]

I wouldn't put much stock in that early November beginning, to be frank. It was a great start against great competition, but teams are hardly in midseason form that early, otherwise they'd call it "November form"

Malone-ball always had a ceiling. It would have been interesting to see what that ceiling was, but it was always limited. The Kings were drawing fouls at an unsustainable rate; teams were going to adjust regardless. And while they didn't shoot many threes, McLemore was hitting at a 40+ clip, and Collison/Gay were both around 38%, which is uncertain to continue. Malone also couldn't figure out how to maximize the bench because the offense was so dependent on Boogie.

As an aside, I personally believe it was beyond stupid to fire Malone when they did. Coaching changes rarely bear fruit midseason. You can pin that on front office dysfunction. They tanked the season.



90s ball offers very little guidance to how the Kings should play today. The offense back then was basically walk the ball up, toss it to the superstar/center, and stand around. Not even the Grizzlies do that. Offensive sets have to be far more creative in how they disguise their isolations and generate open three pointers. Standing around isn't going to get it done. The defenses the Kings will have to play in 2015 are radically different from the defenses exhibited in the 90s.



The offense should focus on getting the best possible shot every time. Cousins' interior gravity opens up the opportunity to be creative on the perimeter, and the Kings should absolutely work that to their advantage. A multifaceted and diverse attack is the most difficult to guard. You press the interior advantage when its appropriate, and kick out for threes when the opportunity presents itself. Other times, use the interior game to run sets aiming to get open threes. If you run the same sets every time, the defense will counter. The key is to be balanced and unpredictable. The Clippers are built around CP3 and Blake Griffin, but still consciously make sure Redick gets involved.

I agree that the current personnel is not suited to this task, but thats where Vlade/PDA need to do their job.

I wouldn't put much stock in that early November beginning, to be frank. It was a great start against great competition, but teams are hardly in midseason form that early, otherwise they'd call it "November form"

I will argue that it is reasonable to put significant stock into November because its the only stretch that we have been successful with this current team. What's curious is that once we changed strategies, our record plummeted. That is one reason why I advocate we return to Malone's offensive schemes as a base point, and then adjust it according to need.

Malone-ball always had a ceiling. It would have been interesting to see what that ceiling was, but it was always limited. The Kings were drawing fouls at an unsustainable rate; teams were going to adjust regardless. And while they didn't shoot many threes, McLemore was hitting at a 40+ clip, and Collison/Gay were both around 38%, which is uncertain to continue. Malone also couldn't figure out how to maximize the bench because the offense was so dependent on Boogie.

I'll define Malone-ball as the type of basketball the Kings used in the beginning of the season.

I cannot say with confidence whether or not the Kings drawing fouls was sustainable. However, even if it wasn't sustainable that doesn't strongly support the argument that Malone-ball had a ceiling, since Cousins and Gay are both already dangerous with or without foul calls. In fact, it may be that the type of play that Malone-ball creates is a very physical kind, which draws fouls. James Harden, while being notorious for superstar calls, is also incredibly gifted at drawing fouls. Additionally, the fact that teams will adjust also does not prove that Malone-ball had a ceiling; without a doubt, Malone should have had the opportunity to make counter-adjustments, but never had the opportunity to, since he got fired before those teams made adjustments against a Kings team with Cousins. The quality of those counter-adjustments determines part of the effectiveness of Malone-ball. Therefore, I wouldn't say that hypothetical adjustments prove that Malone-ball has a ceiling, since those adjustments were never there to help prove or disprove the ceiling argument. The high percentage on threes does not prove that Malone-ball was unsustainable. First, this high percentage is due partly to the inside-out offense. Guards have to do less to get a 3pt shot in an inside-out offense (based on post play, not the drive-and-kick kind). For example, in an inside-out offense, guards don't have to run through a barrage of screens in order to sprint to an open spot, where they may be fatigued or off-balance before taking the shot. However, inside-out demands that post players have to do more. Second, even if that shooting was unsustainable this season, I have doubts that it will drop so significantly so that it brings us losses. In fact, shooting development/front office moves would have made it so that that shooting could keep up with the success of Malone-ball. Even if the shooting was unsustainable, it is a matter of our team's ability to shoot, not a matter of the effectiveness of an inside-out scheme. I will agree that Malone couldn't find a way to maximize the bench, but that is only a matter of the personnel, since we did not have another decent post threat besides Gay. Another style may work for the bench.

90s ball offers very little guidance to how the Kings should play today. The offense back then was basically walk the ball up, toss it to the superstar/center, and stand around. Not even the Grizzlies do that. Offensive sets have to be far more creative in how they disguise their isolations and generate open three pointers. Standing around isn't going to get it done. The defenses the Kings will have to play in 2015 are radically different from the defenses exhibited in the 90s.

Walking the ball up, tossing it to the superstar/center, and then stand along the perimeter, is a bad idea when it doesn't work. Sure, a lot of 90s schemes might not work today, but there should be at least some things that we can learn since a lot of the 90s revolved around post play. All I'm saying: don't ignore what strategies made teams effective in the past. Test those strategies based on your personnel (we have Cousins), and then adjust from there. Giving up on an offensive philosophy that initially worked but didn't have the time to develop and adjust, and then trying out another offensive philosophy since another team could win with that other offensive philosophy... is jumping the gun.

The offense should focus on getting the best possible shot every time. Cousins' interior gravity opens up the opportunity to be creative on the perimeter, and the Kings should absolutely work that to their advantage. A multifaceted and diverse attack is the most difficult to guard. You press the interior advantage when its appropriate, and kick out for threes when the opportunity presents itself. Other times, use the interior game to run sets aiming to get open threes. If you run the same sets every time, the defense will counter. The key is to be balanced and unpredictable. The Clippers are built around CP3 and Blake Griffin, but still consciously make sure Redick gets involved.

I will argue that the best way to get the best possible shot for this Kings team is to run an inside-out offense. For example, we should not run plays to get shooters open if we know that our best option is to dump the ball to Cousins down low. In essence, we don't fix what isn't broke. Once the opposing team overplays guarding Cousins, we can use that to our advantage; we get shooters open, etc. Teams that attempt to be multifaceted despite having a one-dimensional, yet tried-and-true option, is missing out of the opportunity to score a bucket with their #1 option. Teams are successful when they use that #1 option to branch out into other kinds of attacks. For example, Stephen Curry is the #1 option and would not pass up an open 3 point shot for the purpose of being multifaceted. It's not about being multifaceted, it's about what works, and the beginning of the season showed that an inside-out offense works for the Kings... so far. It must be tried again, and we'll make adjustment along the way. It needs to be broke before we can fix it.

That means that, yes, we press the interior advantage when its appropriate, but we try to press it as much as the defense gives us. It's our #1 option. Our interior advantage forces opposing defenses to work more than if we exercised our perimeter advantage. We can create different sets based off of our interior threat. We should abuse certain sets, force the defense to counter, and then run counter-sets. Else, we will be running plays for less-than-stellar players such as McLemore and Stauskas, which puts more of a burden on them since the opposing defense isn't fixated on Cousins or Gay if we don't abuse sets for the purpose of a multifaceted approach.

I agree that the current personnel is not suited to this task, but thats where Vlade/PDA need to do their job.

The effectiveness of their moves are somewhat left to chance, so we need to work with what we have and stick with it. Right now, we have DeMarcus Cousins for a while. In summary, we ought to abuse the inside-outside sets, and let everything else branch off from there.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

I will argue that it is reasonable to put significant stock into November because its the only stretch that we have been successful with this current team. What's curious is that once we changed strategies, our record plummeted. That is one reason why I advocate we return to Malone's offensive schemes as a base point, and then adjust it according to need.

I'll define Malone-ball as the type of basketball the Kings used in the beginning of the season.

I cannot say with confidence whether or not the Kings drawing fouls was sustainable. However, even if it wasn't sustainable that doesn't strongly support the argument that Malone-ball had a ceiling, since Cousins and Gay are both already dangerous with or without foul calls. In fact, it may be that the type of play that Malone-ball creates is a very physical kind, which draws fouls. James Harden, while being notorious for superstar calls, is also incredibly gifted at drawing fouls. Additionally, the fact that teams will adjust also does not prove that Malone-ball had a ceiling; without a doubt, Malone should have had the opportunity to make counter-adjustments, but never had the opportunity to, since he got fired before those teams made adjustments against a Kings team with Cousins. The quality of those counter-adjustments determines part of the effectiveness of Malone-ball. Therefore, I wouldn't say that hypothetical adjustments prove that Malone-ball has a ceiling, since those adjustments were never there to help prove or disprove the ceiling argument. The high percentage on threes does not prove that Malone-ball was unsustainable. First, this high percentage is due partly to the inside-out offense. Guards have to do less to get a 3pt shot in an inside-out offense (based on post play, not the drive-and-kick kind). For example, in an inside-out offense, guards don't have to run through a barrage of screens in order to sprint to an open spot, where they may be fatigued or off-balance before taking the shot. However, inside-out demands that post players have to do more. Second, even if that shooting was unsustainable this season, I have doubts that it will drop so significantly so that it brings us losses. In fact, shooting development/front office moves would have made it so that that shooting could keep up with the success of Malone-ball. Even if the shooting was unsustainable, it is a matter of our team's ability to shoot, not a matter of the effectiveness of an inside-out scheme. I will agree that Malone couldn't find a way to maximize the bench, but that is only a matter of the personnel, since we did not have another decent post threat besides Gay. Another style may work for the bench.

You put far, far too much stock in what is an incredibly small sample size. It doesn't matter how successful it was compared to the rest of the decade, or any other stretch of play. Its unreasonable to rely on it. Malone-ball was already falling apart before Cousins got sick. The Kings started 5-1, but went 4-5 to end the month. Then Cousins got sick and the team fell apart. Then Malone got fired and any hope of the season was thrown out the window. You also underestimate how important the free throw rate was to the Kings success during that time. Getting to the free throw line kept the offense efficient, but its inherently flawed because you are relying on a factor outside of your control (the refs). The Kings were always going to have to adjust when defenses adapt and the calls dry up. That means finding ways to stay efficient without relying on calls; naturally, the three pointer is the best option. McLemore, Gay and Collison all saw their three point percentage drop from their November highs; the personnel must be upgraded.

Walking the ball up, tossing it to the superstar/center, and then stand along the perimeter, is a bad idea when it doesn't work. Sure, a lot of 90s schemes might not work today, but there should be at least some things that we can learn since a lot of the 90s revolved around post play. All I'm saying: don't ignore what strategies made teams effective in the past. Test those strategies based on your personnel (we have Cousins), and then adjust from there. Giving up on an offensive philosophy that initially worked but didn't have the time to develop and adjust, and then trying out another offensive philosophy since another team could win with that other offensive philosophy... is jumping the gun.

It doesn't work. Maybe it could work if you had Shaq or Wilt or Kareem, someone who can literally look down on defenders, but we don't. Cousins is a physical marvel at 6'11 265, but there are bigger defenders in the NBA. There's really not much to be learned from 90s era ball. Go watch a game from the 90s sometime. You will barely recognize it. There are no HORNS sets, there are no misdirection plays. Nobody is running any weaves. The pick-and-roll isn't as prominent. It was a different era where defenses were restricted to play in a certain way so offenses were never required to be as complex.

I will argue that the best way to get the best possible shot for this Kings team is to run an inside-out offense. For example, we should not run plays to get shooters open if we know that our best option is to dump the ball to Cousins down low. In essence, we don't fix what isn't broke. Once the opposing team overplays guarding Cousins, we can use that to our advantage; we get shooters open, etc. Teams that attempt to be multifaceted despite having a one-dimensional, yet tried-and-true option, is missing out of the opportunity to score a bucket with their #1 option. Teams are successful when they use that #1 option to branch out into other kinds of attacks. For example, Stephen Curry is the #1 option and would not pass up an open 3 point shot for the purpose of being multifaceted. It's not about being multifaceted, it's about what works, and the beginning of the season showed that an inside-out offense works for the Kings... so far. It must be tried again, and we'll make adjustment along the way. It needs to be broke before we can fix it.

That means that, yes, we press the interior advantage when its appropriate, but we try to press it as much as the defense gives us. It's our #1 option. Our interior advantage forces opposing defenses to work more than if we exercised our perimeter advantage. We can create different sets based off of our interior threat. We should abuse certain sets, force the defense to counter, and then run counter-sets. Else, we will be running plays for less-than-stellar players such as McLemore and Stauskas, which puts more of a burden on them since the opposing defense isn't fixated on Cousins or Gay if we don't abuse sets for the purpose of a multifaceted approach.

The effectiveness of their moves are somewhat left to chance, so we need to work with what we have and stick with it. Right now, we have DeMarcus Cousins for a while. In summary, we ought to abuse the inside-outside sets, and let everything else branch off from there.

First, the point is that you upgrade the personnel to make the team better so that you're not running those sets for McLemore and Stauskas, but someone better. Because its necessary.

Second, nobody is arguing to pass up open shots. Steph Curry will never pass up an open three, but the Warriors will still run plays for Thompson, Green, Barnes, etc. They run their offense through Bogut and Green at times. The best attack is a diverse one. If you're going to run an singular-minded offense with a mechanical #1, and then to #2 if countered, then #3, etc. eventually you're going to run out of options. You have to give teams different looks. Sometimes its through Cousins in the low block to get a score. Other times it might be Cousins at the elbow. You could run a set that uses Cousins as a decoy to draw up the shooter to get a three. Its about versatility, being able to attack the defense in different ways. The emphasis will always be on interior play because the offense will run through Cousins most of the time. But you have to be able to make defenses worry about all options.

The simplistic idea that our offense needs to be rigidly "inside-out" is unnecessary. If we don't have the personnel to be diverse, we need to upgrade.

 

[sdballer]

You put far, far too much stock in what is an incredibly small sample size. It doesn't matter how successful it was compared to the rest of the decade, or any other stretch of play. Its unreasonable to rely on it. Malone-ball was already falling apart before Cousins got sick. The Kings started 5-1, but went 4-5 to end the month. Then Cousins got sick and the team fell apart. Then Malone got fired and any hope of the season was thrown out the window. You also underestimate how important the free throw rate was to the Kings success during that time. Getting to the free throw line kept the offense efficient, but its inherently flawed because you are relying on a factor outside of your control (the refs). The Kings were always going to have to adjust when defenses adapt and the calls dry up. That means finding ways to stay efficient without relying on calls; naturally, the three pointer is the best option. McLemore, Gay and Collison all saw their three point percentage drop from their November highs; the personnel must be upgraded.



It doesn't work. Maybe it could work if you had Shaq or Wilt or Kareem, someone who can literally look down on defenders, but we don't. Cousins is a physical marvel at 6'11 265, but there are bigger defenders in the NBA. There's really not much to be learned from 90s era ball. Go watch a game from the 90s sometime. You will barely recognize it. There are no HORNS sets, there are no misdirection plays. Nobody is running any weaves. The pick-and-roll isn't as prominent. It was a different era where defenses were restricted to play in a certain way so offenses were never required to be as complex.



First, the point is that you upgrade the personnel to make the team better so that you're not running those sets for McLemore and Stauskas, but someone better. Because its necessary.

Second, nobody is arguing to pass up open shots. Steph Curry will never pass up an open three, but the Warriors will still run plays for Thompson, Green, Barnes, etc. They run their offense through Bogut and Green at times. The best attack is a diverse one. If you're going to run an singular-minded offense with a mechanical #1, and then to #2 if countered, then #3, etc. eventually you're going to run out of options. You have to give teams different looks. Sometimes its through Cousins in the low block to get a score. Other times it might be Cousins at the elbow. You could run a set that uses Cousins as a decoy to draw up the shooter to get a three. Its about versatility, being able to attack the defense in different ways. The emphasis will always be on interior play because the offense will run through Cousins most of the time. But you have to be able to make defenses worry about all options.

The simplistic idea that our offense needs to be rigidly "inside-out" is unnecessary. If we don't have the personnel to be diverse, we need to upgrade.

Kind if silly to claim that the "Malone" style was starting to fade. We won 5 of 6 to start the season, lost 3 in a row on the road against good teams, then won 4 of 6. Maybe it wasn't sustainable but you can't argue we had peaked and should consider other styles.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

Kind if silly to claim that the "Malone" style was starting to fade. We won 5 of 6 to start the season, lost 3 in a row on the road against good teams, then won 4 of 6. Maybe it wasn't sustainable but you can't argue we had peaked and should consider other styles.

Some of you are way too obsessed with an extremely limited amount of success at the beginning of the season. They started hot at 5-1, ended the month going 4-5 as the foul rate started coming back down to earth. Any way you slice it, its a tiny sample size with plenty of unsustainable elements. Its not likely to recapture that offensive efficiency reliant on such a massive foul drawing rate. Its a safe bet that style of play isn't replicable.

 

[lawlman91]

You put far, far too much stock in what is an incredibly small sample size. It doesn't matter how successful it was compared to the rest of the decade, or any other stretch of play. Its unreasonable to rely on it. Malone-ball was already falling apart before Cousins got sick. The Kings started 5-1, but went 4-5 to end the month. Then Cousins got sick and the team fell apart. Then Malone got fired and any hope of the season was thrown out the window. You also underestimate how important the free throw rate was to the Kings success during that time. Getting to the free throw line kept the offense efficient, but its inherently flawed because you are relying on a factor outside of your control (the refs). The Kings were always going to have to adjust when defenses adapt and the calls dry up. That means finding ways to stay efficient without relying on calls; naturally, the three pointer is the best option. McLemore, Gay and Collison all saw their three point percentage drop from their November highs; the personnel must be upgraded.

It's the only stretch of time that we saw success, and we ought to try that strategy again. It's a small sample size, so we haven't seen it enough to know whether or not it fails. So far, we have only seen Malone-ball be relatively successful, and that's reason enough to try that style again. Will it carry us to a championship? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not... but we'll need to try that style to find out. On the subject of free throws, we won't know if it would have been sustainable either. I am guessing that it might be, because of the early season's physical play; that's up for debate. But Malone-ball was the only way that we were getting these calls. We should try that strategy again, and find out.

It doesn't work. Maybe it could work if you had Shaq or Wilt or Kareem, someone who can literally look down on defenders, but we don't. Cousins is a physical marvel at 6'11 265, but there are bigger defenders in the NBA. There's really not much to be learned from 90s era ball. Go watch a game from the 90s sometime. You will barely recognize it. There are no HORNS sets, there are no misdirection plays. Nobody is running any weaves. The pick-and-roll isn't as prominent. It was a different era where defenses were restricted to play in a certain way so offenses were never required to be as complex

Sure, there might not be a lot to learn; my argument is that there has to be some things to learn from that era, which should be true. I'm not arguing that we should emulate 90s basketball, only that we might be able to at least nitpick ideas from that era. We aren't a 90s team, but we are a team that revolves around Cousins.

First, the point is that you upgrade the personnel to make the team better so that you're not running those sets for McLemore and Stauskas, but someone better. Because its necessary.

Second, nobody is arguing to pass up open shots. Steph Curry will never pass up an open three, but the Warriors will still run plays for Thompson, Green, Barnes, etc. They run their offense through Bogut and Green at times. The best attack is a diverse one. If you're going to run an singular-minded offense with a mechanical #1, and then to #2 if countered, then #3, etc. eventually you're going to run out of options. You have to give teams different looks. Sometimes its through Cousins in the low block to get a score. Other times it might be Cousins at the elbow. You could run a set that uses Cousins as a decoy to draw up the shooter to get a three. Its about versatility, being able to attack the defense in different ways. The emphasis will always be on interior play because the offense will run through Cousins most of the time. But you have to be able to make defenses worry about all options.

The simplistic idea that our offense needs to be rigidly "inside-out" is unnecessary. If we don't have the personnel to be diverse, we need to upgrade.

It looks like this is a matter of play philosophy, not a discussion about whether or not low post threat should be the #1 option for the Kings. It looks like we agree that the offense should run through Cousins most of the time, which I initially wanted to argue. However, it looks like the discussion is in a different realm now: multifaceted approach, or "action-reaction" approach? I will not discuss this different realm here, since this forum post is mostly relating to whether or not the Kings should use the low post option as a primary means of offense, much like the Grizzlies do.

 

[sdballer]

Some of you are way too obsessed with an extremely limited amount of success at the beginning of the season. They started hot at 5-1, ended the month going 4-5 as the foul rate started coming back down to earth. Any way you slice it, its a tiny sample size with plenty of unsustainable elements. Its not likely to recapture that offensive efficiency reliant on such a massive foul drawing rate. Its a safe bet that style of play isn't replicable.

Some of us are way too obsessed with a small sample size? Agreed. Let's focus on the big picture like foul drawing rates.

 

[IfAt1st]

I wouldn't put much stock in that early November beginning, to be frank. It was a great start against great competition, but teams are hardly in midseason form that early, otherwise they'd call it "November form"

Malone-ball always had a ceiling. It would have been interesting to see what that ceiling was, but it was always limited. The Kings were drawing fouls at an unsustainable rate; teams were going to adjust regardless. And while they didn't shoot many threes, McLemore was hitting at a 40+ clip, and Collison/Gay were both around 38%, which is uncertain to continue.

What the hell kind of retconning of history are you pulling here?!?

The most unsustainable aspect of the Kings game in the beginning of the year was two things:
1) There was NO WAY their bench could possibly continue to be that horrendous. It was by far the worst in the NBA - provided nothing, and lost lead after lead, costing them games. Any normal winning team would have found help pronto to fill the gaping holes, but instead the FO decided to torpedo the season once they saw the opportunity DMC's illness provided to rid themselves of Malone for whatever ego-tastic reason(s).

2) Their 3-pt shooting would have gotten better.
You are either misinformed, or are deliberately misleading us, when you say the Kings 3-pt shooting was better-than-sustainable.
In fact, Rudy Gay was shooting less than 30%, and Collison was right around that, too.
Omri was a whopping 16% (he only made 2!), Nik was 25%, Sessions had made a whopping 5 all year through the Rockets game where Boogie got sick (and RayMac had made 3).

So I repeat my question:
Why are you advocating a mistaken proposition that the Kings early success was not sustainable?

 

[Warhawk]

Some of you are way too obsessed with an extremely limited amount of success at the beginning of the season.

It is my humble opinion that we should have continued to expand that sample size using the style that was proven to be effective.

You know, the only style we have played in the last near-decade that was shown to work?

 

[randymoss1881]

Y'all can kill me after I post this but I believe this:

After watching GS getting beat like a baby by the cavs and they would have lost to Memphis if it weren't for injuries. I'm 100% positive we fired our true chance at being contenders when we canned malone. Nobody will play or have better personale than GS to play this uptempo small ball BS than GS. They still are being proven that defense wins with they way the cavs are beating them without irving/love. Even if GS comes back and wins the series it's still being proven what wins. We were headed down this defensive path and were being successful at it. Now unless Karl changed philosophies and gets us to atleast play above average defense our ceiling will always be capped.