[Grades] Grades v. Knicks 3/20/2016

[gunks]

It's too bad his signings didn't really work out (mainly talking smellinelli here, but I think there was an expectation that KK could play alongside Cuz which hasn't really materialized on the court. ... I still like KK as a backup though) because I thought Vlade was definitely going after the right type of players to put around Cuz. And the WCS/Cuz frontcourt looks really good moving forward.

I still like Vlade making decisions. We just need to get a coach who is on the same page.

I think we're a coach, defender, and SG away from being a low seed playoff lock with room for growth.

Of course we've been saying that for years now, and Vivek will probably hire Mark Jackson this summer, so who knows.

 

[KingsFanGER]

No, it really couldn't. Because positions don't determine impact, talent does. Even during the era of the dominant big man, you still built your offense around your best player; the 70's Warriors didn't run their offense through Clifford Ray. The 80s were still the era of the big man, but the Bulls didn't run their offense through Bill Cartwright, the Pistons didn't run their offense through Bill Laimbeer, and the Trailblazers didn't run their offense through Kevin Duckworth. Why? Because positions don't determine impact, talent does.

I'm very uncomfortable with how you're trying to frame this conversation. Why are wings and guards considered the best players of their teams? They are only considered thus on the teams where they happen to be the best players on their teams. You appear to be trying to lead the conversation in a direction where you think that you can convince people that guards and wings are considered the best players because it's become a natural law, or an immutable rule of the universe that wings and guards just are the best players on their teams. And that just isn't so. Giannis Antetokuonmpo isn't the best player on the Bucks because he's a wing, he's the best player on the Bucks because he's the best player on the Bucks. He just happens to be a wing. The Thunder don't run their offense through Serge Ibaka, because Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook are better than he is. That's not because they're perimeter players, they just happen to be perimeter players.

Stephen Curry just happens to be the best player on the Warriors; if you transplanted this Warriors team into any era, he would still be the best player on the Warriors. It's not like, if you sent the 2015-16 Warriors back to the sixties in a time machine, that they would run the offense through Andrew Bogut; that's preposterous. And yet, that appears to be what you're implying. You appear to be implying that the era that you play in dictates what positions the best player on your team plays, and I'm saying, no it doesn't.

It took me a while, but I promised to answer to this post. So here we go again...

All I wanted to say is, that every era has a perception of which type of players are needed in order to win. And that the playstyle of the majority of NBA teams determines, which type of players get more minutes . When Shaq or the 90's centers were in the league every team was forced to field a 7'0 guy to deal with these guys. It was all about controlling the interior and making it as difficult as possible for the big guys.
The way I see it, today it's not about stopping one individual. It's about disrupting the ball and player movement of your opponent, dealing with the pick&rolls teams run and controlling the pace of the game yourself.
To do this you need players with quite specific strengths. And some big guys are having troubles with this kind of playstyles.
That's why a guy like Monroe lost his starting job on a subpar team like the Bucks. It's not because he isn't talented. He sure is a very good big man. It's just that his style of play isn't required anymore in this league.
He isn't able to adjust to the common playstyle of this league and his own playstyle is marginalized, because of zone defense, 3 pointers and fast paced play.

The reason that's "all you hear" today is because coaches and GMs have become lazy and unimaginative. Players have evolved, and coaches and GMs haven't caught up to the evolution. Or rather, they've only caught up to one tiny fragment of the evolution.

Look it might be pretty unusual on the internet, but I'm humble enough to think, that the GM's and coaches in the NBA know a hell lot more about basketball than I do. So when I as a fan have the impression, that the league has evolved in a certain way, I still don't think I know the reason, why Gm's and coaches want to follow this evolution, if that's really what is happening right now. It might be, that you are right. But it also might be, that the way basketball has evolved simply left players like Monroe behind. I would think most people working in the NBA are smart enough to know the strengths and weaknesses of post up play, a slow paced offense centered around a true big man and all of that. So I believe there got to be another reason, that they decide not to field this kind of playstyle other than them being unimaginative and lazy.

I can't imagine why being about chemistry could or should be listed in an argument of cons, as if it is a liability

I never said, that being about chemistry is a bad thing. All I wanted to say is, that Vlade Divac is not a guy I would expect to come up with something revolutionary. I wouldn't expect him to find a way to come up with a new playstyle, that forced the current teams to adjust to what the Kings are doing. Of course he might prove me wrong, but for me Vlade is a smart hiring by Ranadive mainly because he is well liked by Kings fans.

Who cares what other people expect? It's up to us to challenge their expectations.

Of course it's up to us. But so far we only proved we are the same old Kings. Our FA signings underperformed, we had lots of turnmoil and while we had a dominant center we still struggle to win more than 30 games.
Now we hang our hat on the next coach, hired by an inexperienced VP of basketball operations and his supporting cast. This doesn't sound like the environment that come up with something new to stun the whole league.

That's a coaching fail; if you have a guy who bends defenses, and you can't figure out how to make that work, then you're not a good coach.

Hum...we will see, once Cousins starts or doesn't start winning.

Because that's not "obvious." The only thing that's obvious is that coaching hasn't caught up to the analytics.

It is obvious, because the statement was about the here and now. The Grizzlies got crushed playing inside out. San Antonio is taking a much more balanced approach. They aren't pounding the ball inside and have everyone play off LMA.
A team like Portland is heading into the PO with Damian Lillard, CJ and a bunch of roleplayers. The Celtics pretty much play a system that features up to 5 guys on the perimeter at the same time. Meanwhile Cousins is again on the outside looking in.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

It took me a while, but I promised to answer to this post. So here we go again...

All I wanted to say is, that every era has a perception of which type of players are needed in order to win. And that the playstyle of the majority of NBA teams determines, which type of players get more minutes...

But that just proves my point: the reason why coaches and GMs fall in line with the perception of whatever the so-called playstyle is of their era is because they're lazy and unimaginative. They're not compelled to play the same way that everybody else is, that's just what they end up doing. And Monroe lost his job because he's overrated, and he's always been overrated; he didn't lose his job because big men have become obsolete. If you want to say that he doesn't fit the Bucks' preferred playstyle, that's fair, but this whole notion of he can't play in the "modern NBA" is just some perception-is-reality bulldaggle.

Look it might be pretty unusual on the internet, but I'm humble enough to think, that the GM's and coaches in the NBA know a hell lot more about basketball than I do.

That's your prerogative, but there's no particular reason to believe that. Those guys are all insiders, so they have access that we don't have, and they have connections within the industry that we don't have. That may or may not translate to knowing more about basketball; it's not like these guys went to GM school, or coaching school: literally half of the current coaches in the NBA are ex-players; probably close to a third have no additional qualifications or coaching experience.

So when I as a fan have the impression, that the league has evolved in a certain way, I still don't think I know the reason, why Gm's and coaches want to follow this evolution, if that's really what is happening right now.

I know the reason: because it's a copycat league and, as I keep saying, coaches and GMs are lazy. It is, after all, human nature to want to emulate success. Nobody wants to hunt for their own stepladder; they'd rather stand on someone else's shoulders.

It might be, that you are right. But it also might be, that the way basketball has evolved simply left players like Monroe behind.

I don't think that's how evolution works. But, let's suppose for the sake of argument, that you're onto something: if guys like Monroe and Okafor keep getting drafted (and they do... and they will...), doesn't that contradict your theory about GM's knowing more about basketball than you do? I mean, if this so-called evolution is so obvious that even a layperson can see it, but these guys keep getting jobs, then that would mean that these GMs can't really be as smart as you make out, can they?

It is obvious, because the statement was about the here and now. The Grizzlies got crushed playing inside out. San Antonio is taking a much more balanced approach. They aren't pounding the ball inside and have everyone play off LMA.

First of All™, I don't think that that proves what you think it proves. Second of all, Memphis didn't get "crushed" because they were playing inside out; they "got crushed" because, after three games, somebody on the Warriors coaching staff figured out,"Wait a minute: why are we guarding Tony Allen? These guys are beating us playing four-on-five offense because we're guarding them like they're playing five-on-five offense. Why don't we just double Gasol, and dare Allen to try and beat us?" Which, of course, he couldn't. Memphis' inside-out offense didn't fail, on any level.