[Grades] Grades v. Hawks 02/22/2013

What do you think the biggest problem is for Marcus Thornton right now?

  • Tyreke Evans

    Votes: 5 13.2%
  • Isaiah Thomas

    Votes: 3 7.9%
  • Jimmer/Brooks

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Marcus Thornton

    Votes: 14 36.8%
  • Keith Smart

    Votes: 16 42.1%

  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Well...we came, we saw, we gave up 122 points, again, we got selfish, again, we lost, again.

Funny how those patterns can work, and how completely unable to make those connections our team seems to be.

Anyway, Isiah and Cousins were good for a long stretch, and selfish for a long stretch. Reke's numbers are a bit illusory..he was good early, frozen out in the middle, and bad late. Nobody else helped much, and the bench failed again, as did we. Not a girls loss, just a loss against another superior team.

Full Grading Consortium for tonight:
Bricklayer
Capt. Factorial
bajaden


Boxscore

Stats: 28min 8pts (3-8, 2-4, 0-0) 1reb 2ast 0stl 0blk 0TO
Salmons ( C- ) -- I like John Salmons, but of late, he just seems out of sorts. He looks like a fish swimming upstream and trying to find the best route to take. There are times when he just seems to disappear. I realize that its hard to make an impact when there are times when other players are dominating the ball. There was a period when Cuz and IT were playing two man basketball, and no one else was touching the ball. And thats not a criticism, because it was working. John had 8 points on 3 of 8 shooting, and was 2 of 4 from downtown. But three of those eight points came on a three with the game out of sight. To make matters worse, he only had 1 rebound and 2 assists. John is a good player, and he has to find a way to make more of an impact. If you not scoring the ball, then grab some rebounds. There was a period of the game, when he hit a fallaway 15 footer, and then a three off of a great save of a ball going out of bounds by Cousins. As a result they started feeding him the ball. But he followed that by missing his next two shots. All in all, a disappointing night for Salmons. --Baja
8e6790ec-be00-4cc2-887b-95ab3e3a2dd7.jpg

Remember: Mark Olberding (w/Kings '85-87)? -- when the Kings arrived in Sacto it was with a platoon at PF. The starter was an old school tough guy schooled in the arts of thuggery named Mark Olberding, who's nose bent about 3 ways and looked like a prize fighter's. He was undersized, aging, had very little talent (when you look at how anemic his numbers were at the time its startling), but he knew how to body you up, hit you with a well timed elbow, and generally do the sorts of things that would make most modern PFs not named Reggie Evans break down in tears and cry for mommy.

Stats: 30min 9pts (3-9, 0-0, 3-4) 10reb 0ast 0stl 2blk 2TO
Thompson ( C ) -- Jason had one of those nights that brought back memories of years past. He missed opportunity after opportunity to score. He did score 9 points, but could have easily had 15 or so. He missed a point blank shot right under the basket in the first quarter. He did score a layup on a nice pass from Salmons right at the basket. But finished off the first quarter by missing a point blank dunk. He spent a good portion of the 2nd quarter riding the bench. He closed out the 1st half by making a good foul on Josh Smith as the Kings had a foul to give, and left the Hawks with only 8/10's of a second left. Smith managed to get a 3 pt shot off that went in, and was originally credited as a basket, but was reversed when the officials ruled that the clock on the basket hadn't started on time. The second half didn't go much better offensively for JT. He grabbed a rebound off of a Cousiins miss, but missed the put back. A little later he did a nice job of posting up Smith in isolation, but then threw up an air ball. He seemed to be rushing things all night. The one thing he did do was rebound, and at times, played decent to good defense on Smith. But towards the end, Smith seemed to wear him down, and he really struggled. Not a terrible game, but far from what we've come to expect from JT. --Baja
Bonner.jpg

Remember: Anthony Bonner (w/Kings '90-93)? -- with the recent resolution of the TRob saga, it seemed a time to revisit a PF from a few years later, A.B., Anthony Bonner (the hip hop nickname standard did not arrive until a few years later, and would have resulted in the unfortunate tag "ABone" or worse yet "ABonner"). Part of the record 4 1st round picks in a single year haul we had in 1990 (not one of whom worked out long term) like TRob he was a college rebounding champ who came to the NBA and found himself suddenly undersized. But A.B. was VERY undersized. Like 6'8" 225lb SF sized undersized, but without any of the skills SFs typically have. He was tough, athletic and aggressive on the offensive boards, he had good quick hands and notched a lot of steals for a semi-big, but when Karl Malone came to town...well, we were real bad during those years. Real real bad.

Stats: 37min 26pts (11-22, 1-1, 3-6) 13reb 2ast 3stl 0blk 4TO
Cousins ( B+ ) -- big game for Boogie slapping around the sad excuses for centers the Hawks throw out there. Had to force a terrible jumper against the clock to start, but drained an in rhythm jumper a minute later and began to come up with a series of huge, often ill advised, highlight reel plays.. A big power drive just knocking Zaza out of his way and reverse dunk. A ridiculous rumbling spinning, shoulder lowering drive fullcourt for the +1. A ferocious and sloppy offensive rebound sequence ending in a wild layup. And closed the half stupidly dribbling all the way up the court and ignoring the last shot of the half theory to fore up a shot and get fouled, but leave ATL with 20 seconds to score, which they almost did with a buzzer beating three that was later waved off after review. Defensively was a mixed bag. Of the scrub centers the only one to create any problems was mysteriously Ivan Johnson, who seemed to puzzle Cousins in the 2nd quarter with his ability to put the ball on the floor and get to the line. But Cuz was reluctant to challenge Horford on his bread and butter baseline jumpers, and Horford has been on a tear of late. His three steals tonight were not of the great hands/poke the ball away variety so much as they were just reading some very bad Hawks entry passes and stepping into the passing lanes to take the pass himself. Had some more of his wild trying to do the impossible turnovers. Been going on for a month and its head scratching. Just is fairly routinely anymore trying to make plays with his passing that just are not there and giving away 3-4 possessions a game with it. We (and here smart gets the credit) came right out to start the third and reestablished Boogie with a called post move which he scored on, and he was off on a dominant mini run where he ran off 10 points in about 5 minutes, including even knocking down a wide open three. But got frozen out as IT really began dominating the ball in the latter half of the third, and had to resort to some wild offensive board attempts to get any touches for a long spell before the always present foul trouble took him out of the game. Returned in the mid 4th and had another power +1, but by that time our offensive game had devolved into a long series of 1 on 1 plays, and Boogie joined in, not even looking for teammates on those lucky occasions when it was his turn to go 1 on team. Do think thought that Boogie may actually have been the most reluctant culprit in that collapse of teamwork as you saw him with some pointed words for IT on one play where the little guy chose to go 1 on 4 on a fastbreak rather than dump it behind him to several running teammates. The numbers here dragged this grade up inexorably and I had it an A- before backing off. It was obviously a big game with a number of "It" plays, but felt a bit up and down. --Brick
7Wilson_F.jpg

Remember: Othell Wilson (w/Kings '86-87)? -- thought I would go REAL obscure with this one. Back in the days when we had The King of Pop as a backup PG we also had this man to play a similar role. Its been so long, and he was so obscure (he played 2 seasons in the NBA, the last being wiht the Kings, which was a frequent story for us in those days as we employed people nobody else would) that I cannot even tell you much about his game other than that he was a burly little guy from the Mike Bibby school of PGs, except he was all pass no shot.

Stats: 39min 15pts (5-14, 1-3, 3-4) 8reb 6ast 0stl 0blk 2TO
Evans ( D+ ) -- Evans had 15 points tonight, which normally would be a decent, if not outstanding outcome, but in this case 11 of those came in the first quarter, and outside of hitting his first three, Tyreke didn't hit a shot that wasn't a transition layup for the entire game. At the same time he missed four layups/shots in the lane in the fourth quarter alone. After killing the Hawks in transition in the first quarter, Tyreke was pretty much an offensive non-entity for the remainder of the game. He was passing pretty well tonight with six assists including a couple of nice drive-and-kicks, and his 8 rebounds were also nice to see. On defense, Tyreke had some nice individual possessions but overall did not have a great game. In the late third quarter he got assigned to Josh Smith, which you might think would spell disaster, but he shut Smith down in the post to force a turnover and checked him effectively enough to force him to pass the ball another time - Smith got exactly nothing done against him. Early in the fourth, he stayed in front of Devin Harris' best moves on the break and stayed tall and straight up, but somehow Harris flipped the ball off the glass and got it to fall. But Tyreke slumped off of his man at the 3-point line far too often tonight, with his matchups taking 8 threes against him and hitting 4 of them. It's not like he's really helping by cheating into the lane, so I'd like to see him, say, stay in his man's face rather than allow Kyle Korver (46.6%) and DeShaun Stevenson (38.9%) three and four shots apiece. In the end Tyreke allowed 18 points on 12 shots, and that's not getting it done for the guy whose job is to be our best perimeter defender. --Capt.
PeteChilcutt.jpg

Remember: Pete Chilcutt (w/Kings '91-94)? -- the Chili Dawg! as my brother always used to mockingly call him. An early example of the stretch 4, and every bit the weenie most players of that ilk are. Did not help that when we drafted him he looked like a 14yr old prep school kid (the photo above is after he grew a scruff to tough guy his image). We picked him up with a late first round pick in 1991 and he went on to be part of the awesome Bonner/Chilcutt young "power" forward platoon we had at the time. Thing was though, that after being very soft his first couple of years, by the end of his Kings tenure he had bulked up in his upper body, and begun to fly around on the boards enough that I was actually sad to see him go as a backup. The stretch 4 concept would keep him employed in the league until 2000 as a spot shooting reserve big in the Matt Bonner mode.
 
Last edited:
Stats: 37min 30pts (9-18, 4-6, 8-9) 6reb 9ast 0stl 0blk 3TO
Thomas (A ) -- Thomas had a fantastic offensive night tonight. He had 30 points, and 25 of those came by the end of the third, while the Kings were still in the game. He shot 8-13 in the first three, so he was pretty efficient as well including 4-6 from three (until the fourth, when he shot 1-5). He came up with two big threes in a row early in the third, then took a bad heat check three on the very next possession but otherwise didn't take too many bad shots. In general I felt he was doing a good job running the offense, and his nine assists (his season high) bear witness to that, though he may have over-relied on the two-man game with Cousins to the exclusion of his teammates. On the other hand, it was working pretty well so it's kind of hard to be upset about that. In the first, Thomas was being very aggressive about pushing the ball against Atlanta's transition defense, and I could only wish that he kept it up because it was effective. Thomas only turned the ball over three times today, and two of those were on drives where he mysteriously fell down and didn't get a foul call. Considering that IT falls down about never, there may have been a bit of contact on those plays. IT also grabbed 6 rebounds tonight, which was another season high. If there's anything to complain about, it's Thomas' defense. Tonight he was having trouble with getting picked off of his man again, something which is normally a weakness but somehow wasn't a big deal in the San Antonio game. On one occasion he got screened off of Teague and lazily took about five seconds to get back onto him, giving him just enough time to reluctantly pull the trigger on a three that fell true. On the bright side, despite allowing his man to get around him at least five times that I counted, he only allowed 10 points on 12 shots due to some terrible shooting, mostly by Teague in the first quarter (0-5). Still, we know he's not a great defender and while I'd like to see fewer uncontested shots the defensive outcome was good tonight and it's impossible to ignore his great offensive night. Full A.--Capt.
$(KGrHqV,!osE9dM4mWHDBPdjHQC7Zw~~60_35.JPG

Remember: Steve Colter (w/Kings '90-91)? -- few do. An all offense/no defense backup PG throughout the 80s, we picked him up near the end of his career and in a handful of games for us he mostly just threw up three pointers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bench

Stats: 21min 8pts (3-6, 2-5, 0-0) 2reb 0ast 0stl 0blk 1TO
Thornton ( D ) -- into the game in the late first for Salmons, btu was very much int he shadows or Reke and IT as they were dominating the ball. Had one really bad pass for a turnover that ended up costing us Cousins as well as Cuz got his 2nd foul trying to stop the resulting break. Was letting guys free for jumpers on the perimeter but began the 2nd bombing in back to back ones of his own and added in a layup on nice assist by Johnosn. Was back to start the 4th but quiet and largelu ignored as he did not score again or provide any other contributions. --Brick

Stats: 18min 0pts (0-1, 0-0, 0-0) 5reb 1ast 0stl 0blk 0TO
Hayes ( C ) -- I know! How can I give a C to a player that scored 0 points in 18 minutes of play. I really keyed in on Chuck tonight, and yes, he didn't add anything to the team offensively, as far as points go. But he did a lot of little things that helped add up to bigger things. There are times when I think Hayes is the only player on the team that knows how to set a screen. He's terrific at boxing out under the basket, and if he doesn't get the rebound, many times one of his teammates does as a result. Tonight, he also played outstanding defense on Al Horford, and he was the only one that did. Its not that Horford didn't score on Hayes, but he had to really work hard for any basket he made. Its just a damm shame that Hayes isn't 4 or 5 inches taller, because he'd be a defensive all star if he were. So yes, he scored no points. Of course he only took one shot. He did grab 5 boards, and had on beautiful assist when he grabbed a rebound off of an Outlaw miss, and immediately shoveled it to Cousins under the basket for a dunk. Sometimes the stats just don't show all the contributions a player makes. --Baja

Stats: 7min 0pts (0-2, 0-0, 0-0) 0reb 2ast 0stl 0blk 0TO
Johnson ( INC ) -- Johnson played 7 minutes and wasn't terribly involved, so he doesn't get a grade. He missed both of his shots, one on a drive where he thought he was fouled, but was being very deliberate in trying to find the open man and it resulted in two assists and at least one more wide open shot. In one of the bizarre plays of the game, he tried to establish what was essentially post position out at the three point line but somehow managed to get Tolliver to foul him anyway. --Capt.

Stats: 8min 3pts (1-1, 1-1, 0-0) 0reb 2ast 0stl 0blk 2TO
Fredette ( INC ) -- in to start the 2nd and really struggled. Unfortunately matched up with Teague athletically and having his ballhandling problems again as the Hawks jumped all over him and he was nto able to handle it at all. Finall just dribbled down and pulled up and hit a three as his lone positive contribution. --Brick

Stats: 17min 9pts (3-7, 1-2, 2-2) 1reb 0ast 0stl 0blk 1TO
Outlaw ( C- ) -- got regular rotation minutes this time as Cisco's replacement. Rarely rewarded them. Hit a jumper to stop some bleeding for us in the early 2nd, but generally ineffective, compeltely airballed his next, and really rewarded us for playing him when with 3:30 seconds to go in the hald he was open on the wing and IT hit him right in his hands, and right through his hands and off the floor and out of bounds. When he retured to the game in the second half iimmediately fell asleep against Josh Smith as Smith went right around him for the easy layup. Was of little help in the early 4tha as trhe offense died, and bizarrely we seemed to start running Outlaw isos (the Outlaw isos and offense dying were not unrelated). Threw up another airball, but did get a dunk on the break to at least have a highlight. If this was naybody but outlaw the grade would be more critical. --Brick
 
Last edited:
Smart doesnt agree

Aaron Bruski‏@aaronbruski
Smart on Isaiah: "I thought he played okay."

I don't know what that means, but don't want to hear anything Bruski has to say about Isaiah. He may be useful in this arena fight, and good on him. He doesn't have a clue about the actual sport itself though and IT in particular.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what that means, but don't want to hear anything Bruski has to say about Isaiah. He may be useful in this arena fight, and good on him. He doesn't have a clue about the actual sport itself though and IT in particular.

that was a quote from Keith Smart, not Bruski's opinion
 
IT in February:

19.1 PPG
4.6 APG
2.6 RPG
1.8 TO
39% 3pt
48% FG
98% FT (52 FTA)
13.2 FGA/game

Absolutely outstanding
 
IT in February:

19.1 PPG
4.6 APG
2.6 RPG
1.8 TO
39% 3pt
48% FG
98% FT (52 FTA)
13.2 FGA/game

Absolutely outstanding

that fg% can;t be right -- he was shooting .436 for the month (8 games) coming in, and only shot 50% tonight. Could get him to mayeb .445-.450 or os, not .480.
 
that fg% can;t be right -- he was shooting .436 for the month (8 games) coming in, and only shot 50% tonight. Could get him to mayeb .445-.450 or os, not .480.

Yea, you're correct. Still, pretty outstanding stuff, especially with Tyreke playing his best basketball of the year. I'm really looking forward to a coach who can utilize both of these guys properly.
 
IT in February:

19.1 PPG
4.6 APG
2.6 RPG
1.8 TO
39% 3pt
48% FG
98% FT (52 FTA)
13.2 FGA/game

Absolutely outstanding

To add to this is ITs stats for the year vs Marcus from last year. I wouldn't have predicted IT to fill the spot of Marcus so well. Pretty much swapped them. Honestly wouldn't have expected IT to be able to produce similar numbers as Marcus.


IT 2012-2013
12.3 PPG
3.3 APG
1.8 RPG
1.7 TO
32% 3pt
44% FG
88% FT
9.5 FGA/game
24.9 MIN/game


Thornton 2011-2012
18.7 PPG
1.9 APG
3.7 RPG
1.6 TO
35% 3pt
44% FG
85% FT
15.7 FGA/game
34.9 MIN/game
 
Last edited:
IT in February:

19.1 PPG
4.6 APG
2.6 RPG
1.8 TO
39% 3pt
48% FG
98% FT (52 FTA)
13.2 FGA/game

Absolutely outstanding

Unfortunately, we're also 2-7 in that span.

Interesting stat I looked up: we are 3-21 when IT takes more than 10 FGA, 3-10 when he takes 10 FGA, and 11-22 when he takes less than 10 FGs in a gmae. Now I'm bright enough to know that these two stats aren't necessarily related, and that there a whole bunch of other factors that play a part in this, but it does make you wonder..

Looking individually at IT (and not whatever effects his play may have on the team) though, he has been playing very well as of late.
 
#SmartLogic quote on how he felt after our nice 1st quarter.

"You're feeling pretty good, you feel like you're going to win the game with your offense," Smart said.

You'd think after all of our strong 1st quarters this year, he'd stop thinking that.
--


On another note, here are two great quotes from Salmons - they need Smart to start saying these things.

Sacramento's John Salmons said the Kings, who "focus too much on offense," should stop using youth as an excuse.

"The whole league's young at this point," Salmons said. "The young thing's not really an excuse anymore. It's time to grow up, be a team."

I'm glad at least one of the Kings is realizing we focus way too much on offense.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=400278536
 
#SmartLogic quote on how he felt after our nice 1st quarter.



You'd think after all of our strong 1st quarters this year, he'd stop thinking that.
--


On another note, here are two great quotes from Salmons - they need Smart to start saying these things.



I'm glad at least one of the Kings is realizing we focus way too much on offense.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=400278536

With all that focus on offense you'd think we'd be a better offensive team
 
Unfortunately, we're also 2-7 in that span.

Interesting stat I looked up: we are 3-21 when IT takes more than 10 FGA, 3-10 when he takes 10 FGA, and 11-22 when he takes less than 10 FGs in a gmae. Now I'm bright enough to know that these two stats aren't necessarily related, and that there a whole bunch of other factors that play a part in this, but it does make you wonder..

Looking individually at IT (and not whatever effects his play may have on the team) though, he has been playing very well as of late.

No it really doesn't mean anything. There are probably 1000's of combinations of stats with individual players I could find that look just as bad or good record wise. You could probably find something along the lines of if Chuck Hayes grabs 5 rebounds, we're 7-0 or that we're 5-2 if Travis Outlaw shoots above 60% from the floor. Cute little fun facts, but they don't mean anything.

Unless you really believe that IT putting up those numbers hurts our team, then you're just delusional
 
No it really doesn't mean anything. There are probably 1000's of combinations of stats with individual players I could find that look just as bad or good record wise. You could probably find something along the lines of if Chuck Hayes grabs 5 rebounds, we're 7-0 or that we're 5-2 if Travis Outlaw shoots above 60% from the floor. Cute little fun facts, but they don't mean anything.

Unless you really believe that IT putting up those numbers hurts our team, then you're just delusional

I wasn't talking about the numbers overall, I was talking about FGA. In many of those games his FG% was not what he's been posting this last month. Well say what you will, but I'm not sure it's been helping the team, unless you find a 6-31 record impressive.
 
I wasn't talking about the numbers overall, I was talking about FGA. In many of those games his FG% was not what he's been posting this last month. Well say what you will, but I'm not sure it's been helping the team, unless you find a 6-31 record impressive.

I don't find it to be anything. Because it isn't. Say we reduce every game IT shot more than 10 FGA to 9 FGA/game on the dot. Does that fix everything wrong with the team? Would we be competing for a playoff spot right now?

Naming 1 individual stat for 1 individual player as the crux of all our problems (which is exactly what you're doing btw with an attempt to be subtle about it), is utter foolishness. It makes zero sense in the context of a game completely based around a team component and the vast assortment of different factors that lead to wins and losses.

For instance, the team is 5-21 this season when Tyreke shoots 11 FGA/game+ and 6-8 when he shoots 10 FGA or less. By the same reasoning, Reke should be shooting less as well correct?
 
There seems to be some opinion on this fourm, that if one player takes over a certain amount of shots, he is then taking away from another player, and thereby hurting the team. Now I understand that people have their favorite players, and therefore want that, or those players to put up good numbers. To some extent, we all live a little vicariously through the players we attach our star to. So if player A, lets say one of our star players, is having a bad night, and player D, steps up and has a good night, I don't see the logic in saying player D, was part of the cause of player A having a bad night. Logicly, you would want to score on every offensive posession. Not possible of course, but if one player happens to get hot, and is very effecient offensively, why does it matter if its not your favorite player.

The whole idea is to win the game, and while I understand we need to defend, thats a different discussion at the moment, the bottom line is, the team that scores the most points wins the game. Now I'm not a big fan of diminutive point guards, but tonight, IT was hitting his shots, and for the most part, aside from Cousins, no one else showed any consistency. Tyreke had some moments in the first quarter, but after that, it just wasn't happening for him. So I say, thank goodness that IT was hitting his outside shot tonight. And, I'm certainly not going to blame IT for Tyreke, Thornton or anyone else having a bad game. He did have 9 assists. I thought IT played a pretty smart game tonight. For the most part he didn't force much. And played a two man game with Cousins that was very effective, and kept us in the game. At least for a while. The problem tonight was, we didn't have anyone else that was able to step up and shoulder the load. It sure the hell wasn't JJ or Outlaw.
 
There seems to be some opinion on this fourm, that if one player takes over a certain amount of shots, he is then taking away from another player, and thereby hurting the team. Now I understand that people have their favorite players, and therefore want that, or those players to put up good numbers. To some extent, we all live a little vicariously through the players we attach our star to. So if player A, lets say one of our star players, is having a bad night, and player D, steps up and has a good night, I don't see the logic in saying player D, was part of the cause of player A having a bad night. Logicly, you would want to score on every offensive posession. Not possible of course, but if one player happens to get hot, and is very effecient offensively, why does it matter if its not your favorite player.

The whole idea is to win the game, and while I understand we need to defend, thats a different discussion at the moment, the bottom line is, the team that scores the most points wins the game. Now I'm not a big fan of diminutive point guards, but tonight, IT was hitting his shots, and for the most part, aside from Cousins, no one else showed any consistency. Tyreke had some moments in the first quarter, but after that, it just wasn't happening for him. So I say, thank goodness that IT was hitting his outside shot tonight. And, I'm certainly not going to blame IT for Tyreke, Thornton or anyone else having a bad game. He did have 9 assists. I thought IT played a pretty smart game tonight. For the most part he didn't force much. And played a two man game with Cousins that was very effective, and kept us in the game. At least for a while. The problem tonight was, we didn't have anyone else that was able to step up and shoulder the load. It sure the hell wasn't JJ or Outlaw.

very well said.
 
QUOTABLE II: "Sometimes, when you're playing well offensively, you forget the other side of the ball . . . we had every opportunity to win this game if we even gave half of a defensive effort. Age is not the issue anymore . . . it's time for us to grow up and be a team."

-- Kings coach Keith Smart

Per nba.com recap

So if age is not the issue what is Keith that makes a team give up on defense?


Trading away good defensive players for Money? Idiot coaching maybe?
 
I don't find it to be anything. Because it isn't. Say we reduce every game IT shot more than 10 FGA to 9 FGA/game on the dot. Does that fix everything wrong with the team? Would we be competing for a playoff spot right now?

Naming 1 individual stat for 1 individual player as the crux of all our problems (which is exactly what you're doing btw with an attempt to be subtle about it), is utter foolishness. It makes zero sense in the context of a game completely based around a team component and the vast assortment of different factors that lead to wins and losses.

For instance, the team is 5-21 this season when Tyreke shoots 11 FGA/game+ and 6-8 when he shoots 10 FGA or less. By the same reasoning, Reke should be shooting less as well correct?

This is a great post and one of the reasons I personally try to ignore all those "cute" stats, as you like to call them. Like you said, there are probably millions of combinations of stats that will make you scratch your head and think you've figured out the problem with the team.

Right now, IT isn't part of the problem. Has he been part of the problem in the past? Yes, he has. But right now he's helping the team by being a major scoring threat on limited shots and he's also getting his teammates involved. I've said this dozens of times on this forum. We are simply not a good basketball team right now! When you look beyond DMC everybody else is not a great talent. And that includes Reke and IT. They are nice players but they aren't going to make you a major playoff contender. Our 6-12 guys are absolutely terrible. Now this might change a bit when we bring in Patterson but I'm basing this on before the trade.

DMC is the ONLY player who is a cornerstone to build around because he has the potential to be great. Everybody else is either a complete hack or a role player in this league. Now I suspect a lot of you will jump in and defend Tyreke and talk about how great he is and how bad coaching has held him back. Let me ask you something? How come he still has one of the worst shooting forms in the entire NBA? How come he still doesn't know how to run a 2-1 or 3-1 fast break? How come he still doesn't have the passion or the fire to become great at his craft? It's his 4th year. None of these things are ever going to change with him! We have to accept that and either trade him for pieces that we need or just accept that his ceiling is decent player in the NBA but far from being an All-Star.

We just have to hope that after the ownership change that we will also have a management change (although I wonder if GP could be brilliant again without the Magoofs getting in the way) and not only will the culture of this organization change but that we will also make some real changes to the roster and bring in some quality players who fit together and have a competent coach to run the team.
 
Was he shooting good? What's your point other than mathmatecal accuracy?

I was merely correcting an obvious error -- and a significant one I might add. However no he was NOT shooting good. Hence the point. If you want me to make it stronger consider that in the month of February our top 4 scorers have these shooting percentages:

.445
.545
.483
.527

Now guess which one of them is taking the most shots? The problem with IT playing well, is that in order to do so he normally takes away from his betters. Its why I have, and will continue, to argue that he is a born and bred 6th man type. In other words, put him someplace where IT can be IT without playing keepaway from guys better than IT. Starting him and suppressing him is pointless -- he's small and does not give you off the ball contributions. Starting him and letting him drain the shots away from his betters like a lamprey is no good. But get him into his own nice open space, where he can play his game and not be taking shots from the big boys, and there is a spot. The change of pace, the bench pop. Somewhere in between Lou Williams and Will Bynum.
 
Last edited:
I was merely correcting an obvious error -- and a significant one I might add. However no he was NOT shooting good. Hence the point. If you want me to make it stronger consider that in the month of February our top 4 scorers have these shooting percentages:

.445
.545
.483
.527

Now guess which one of them is taking the most shots? The problem with IT playing well, is that in order to do so he normally takes away from his betters. Its why I have, and will continue, to argue that he is a born and bred 6th man type. In other words, put him someplace where IT can be IT without playing keepaway from guys better than IT. Starting him and suppressing him is pointless -- he's small and does not give you off the ball contributions. Starting him and letting him drain the shots away from his betters like a lamprey is no good. But get him into his own nice open space, where he can play his game and not be taking shots from the big boys, and there is a spot. The change of pace, the bench pop. Somewhere in between Lou Williams and Will Bynum.
IT had a quite a few chances to try out as 6th man this year and most times he sucked because when he starts opposing team consider him 3rd or even 4th best player on the floor, off the bench he becomes the focus of defense and you can guess which way his efficiency goes even though his opponents are bench players.
Baja points to a need for other guys to step up when leaders fade into background. Problem is everybody on this team tries to step no matter if Boogie-Tyreke are playing bad - IT, Thornton, JJ, Owtlaw, Salmons, though half of it is probably on Smart's urging, and often Robinson, before he was traded. I have to say that IT is the best offensive player among those guys and if it was only him, that would be okay. Unfortunately he's just one of the many and thus gets added up to the rest of the bunch.
 
Can you name the shooters? I think I can guess. I don't understand why a lot of people don't understand that you want the ball in the hands of the best players as much as possible.

As a slight diversion, I think IT is getting bad advice from Smart. Smart is spending a lot of time with him and helping him become a better scorer. This makes IT very happy. I wonder why Smart doesn't spend time helping Tyreke become a better scorer. Tyreke can go to the rim and at times is unstoppable despite what people think they see. He also is developing a jump shot and his 3 pt shooting is equal to the other 3 pt shooters on the team. That skill came over the summer and is a remarkable improvement. I swear Smart has noticed that and decided that the best way to use Tyreke is to sit him at the 3 pt line and get a kick out from IT on the occasions that IT looks.

We are losing one of our best athletes. Last year he was forced to be a SF. This year, I don't know what. Next year may determine whether he wants to stay on this team. As of now, he has no options. Tyreke is unique and some coaches would see that uniqueness and take advantage of it with glee. I think Smart sees that uniquesness and interprets it as a pain in the ***. Smart has no creativity and if Nellie never did it, Smart won't do it. I also put a huge amount of blame on Petrie who, although being surprised at the talent of his 60th pick, did not understand that he didn't have to waste money and sign a clone in Brooks. Where Jimmer fits in this fuster cluck I don't know. He seems to be willing to do whatever told to do but is a liability as a ball handler.

Bring in new owners and a new GM and do a little house cleaning. The Tanzanian league needs some chuckers.



Edit: I think people could learn something by trying to understand what Brick is saying. Unfortunately, he turns people off because he comes across as an arrogant and abrasive know it all. The thing is, he knows a lot and makes sense. Pay attention. The fact that I agree has nothing to do with what I just wrote. :) I know people don't pay much attention to me so I wanted to put in a good word for someone that speaks for me most of the time.
 
Last edited:
There seems to be some opinion on this fourm, that if one player takes over a certain amount of shots, he is then taking away from another player, and thereby hurting the team. Now I understand that people have their favorite players, and therefore want that, or those players to put up good numbers. To some extent, we all live a little vicariously through the players we attach our star to. So if player A, lets say one of our star players, is having a bad night, and player D, steps up and has a good night, I don't see the logic in saying player D, was part of the cause of player A having a bad night. Logicly, you would want to score on every offensive posession. Not possible of course, but if one player happens to get hot, and is very effecient offensively, why does it matter if its not your favorite player.
Uh, where did you get this from? Many like our best players and don't have as much of an attachment to our worse players, which is normal. Most think Reke/Cuz are our top two players, and the way defenses load up on them suggest that's true, as well as just knowing what you're looking at. So people who want Cuz or Reke utilized as our focal points as most top two players are used, simply are backing their favorite players?

Given most opinions on how Reke/Cuz should be used are based on the overall body of work since Smart took over, the talent they've shown since they've come into the league and many posters have taken time to post lengthy arguments backing up why they feel a certain way, it's quite illogical of you, for someone who likes to talk a lot about what is logical, to dismiss most arguments made over the last year and suggest it's just people backing their favorite player. If you had disagreed with a post and showed where and why you disagreed, I'd have much more respect for that. But to passively suggest people are simply backing their favorite players without actually taking the time nor effort to show evidence of that is a bit of a cop out, with all due respect.

I don't think anyone said IT played poorly last night. He played well, actually. I didn't see anyone blame IT for Reke missing shots or having an off night. But the larger argument which you've ignored and just chalked up to posters being player fans is that Reke in an off the ball role doesn't suit him, there's no stats which suggest we've been better off for it, his touches are regularly limited and he's been turned into more a spot up player. Where does IT come in? He's best with the ball. He too suffers when he's played off the ball. So how is suggesting they don't fit due to their style of play anything to do with being a player fan? How is not liking Reke off the ball and not involved as much over the last year, not yesterday, but over the last year and realizing a large part of that is how IT plays related to being a player fan? Jennings/Monta also don't fit. It's why the Bucks went after Reddick. They are both ball dominant. Does a Bucks fan who wants Monta next to a less dominant PG or Jennings next to a more off the ball SG become a player fan in your eyes as well? Do the handful of night they click and play well together all the sudden dismiss that entire point of view, as you suggest? An argument or point of view can only be based on the most recent game seems to be what you're implying.

There's a long list of posters here who want Reke more involved and used in a way which compliments his skillset, and have made that argument based off months of watching this team, not any one night. So we all have just hitched ourselves to Reke because we live vicariously through him?
 
Last edited:
I was merely correcting an obvious error -- and a significant one I might add. However no he was NOT shooting good. Hence the point. If you want me to make it stronger consider that in the month of February our top 4 scorers have these shooting percentages:

.445
.545
.483
.527

Now guess which one of them is taking the most shots? The problem with IT playing well, is that in order to do so he normally takes away from his betters. Its why I have, and will continue, to argue that he is a born and bred 6th man type. In other words, put him someplace where IT can be IT without playing keepaway from guys better than IT. Starting him and suppressing him is pointless -- he's small and does not give you off the ball contributions. Starting him and letting him drain the shots away from his betters like a lamprey is no good. But get him into his own nice open space, where he can play his game and not be taking shots from the big boys, and there is a spot. The change of pace, the bench pop. Somewhere in between Lou Williams and Will Bynum.

Thanks. Your message is clear and would agree with you except that the "other players", his "betters" aren't what they should be. Evans deserves more touches, moe plays but not much more. Cousins knows and practices a hundred ways to score and he does but since he has a slow learning curve on when to and when not to, I'm not that sure o how much more he needs right now. Those are the two "betters" who could do with some more touches. In fact how many more is questionable enough to cause me and the coach give in and say let's give the ball to IT. Tough question with no easy answer.
 
Last edited:
I was merely correcting an obvious error -- and a significant one I might add. However no he was NOT shooting good. Hence the point. If you want me to make it stronger consider that in the month of February our top 4 scorers have these shooting percentages:

.445
.545
.483
.527

Now guess which one of them is taking the most shots? The problem with IT playing well, is that in order to do so he normally takes away from his betters. Its why I have, and will continue, to argue that he is a born and bred 6th man type. In other words, put him someplace where IT can be IT without playing keepaway from guys better than IT. Starting him and suppressing him is pointless -- he's small and does not give you off the ball contributions. Starting him and letting him drain the shots away from his betters like a lamprey is no good. But get him into his own nice open space, where he can play his game and not be taking shots from the big boys, and there is a spot. The change of pace, the bench pop. Somewhere in between Lou Williams and Will Bynum.

Efficiency numbers in Feb:

JT: 10.3 FGA, .56 TS%, .52 eFG%
IT: 13.2 FGA. .60 TS%, .50 eFG%
Evans: 13.1 FGA, .54 TS%, .49 eFG%
Cousins: 12.4 FGA, .58 TS%, .54 eFG%

IT is not taking offense away from anybody. He's putting the ball in the basket at a better rate than anyone on our team right now. Which is the point of offense

Our defense on the other hand has gone off the deep end. We're allowing 109.8 PPG, season high opponent shooting %'s, season high opponent assists, season rebound differential. THIS is where a majority of our problems lie. Not on offense.
 
Last edited:
So based on these stats which I don't understand, IT is a better basketball player than Tyreke and we should have IT shoot as much as possible? Is that the point? I suspect these stats have as much to do with whether the players are getting the ball in their comfort zone than anything else. If Tyreke is getting the shots when IT can't find a shot for himself, they mean nothing to me.

What is our win/loss record since IT took over in the starting lineup? Are there any stats that explain that? Perhaps we aren't letting him shoot enough. Yeah, that's it. Let's take the ball completely out of everybody else's hands and have IT shoot. Of course that is ridiculous but why is it so given the stats presented above. As he is our best player, the implication, oh, wait, that is exactly the implication of the note above. The fact that a lot of the players are now just standing around watching IT dribble around until he decides what he wants to do is a factor also.

As to defense, let me see, we have a PG who is 5'9". Let's factor in whether that is a problem. Perhaps. No wait, of course it is a problem. IT gives but he costs us something also and I will bet money that if we are willing to put up with Jimmer's occasional inability to hold on to the ball and his average defense, he would score at a very high rate also. Just let him shoot.

I like IT but not on this team. This team has a very tall guard, a very big center, and a reasonably tall center/PF and seems to be a team constructed to be some kind of a power team. The problem is that half the team is exactly the opposite. Arguing individuals solves nothing. We still lose.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top