[Grades] Grades v. Suns 12/13/2013

[CruzDude]

Again, I remind everyone that this is but one game in a 1-2 year building process AND with new players who had only 1 practice AND another couple of players who only began starting couple weeks ago after shipping off two regular starters and 2 regular bench players. Like it or not, we all have to cut players and coaches a little more slack. Wins/losses are not important this year, building a cohesive team that can become consistent with team defense and learn new things, such as defending the pick & roll, defending perimeter players and switching on defense to prevent layups. Not gonna get'r done this year but hopefully a few months into 2014-15 we should begin to see results. It's like building a different car but your stuck with pieces from an old car that never worked very well. Takes time to figure which go with which and which then works with which. (big exhale)

 

[VF21]

I agree that that is a perfectly acceptable definition. I just don't agree, out of hand, that they are necessarily informed and knowledgeable, but I'm also not limiting that statement to the Kings' front office. I look at it like this: there's a reason why so many bad teams stay bad, year after year, after year. And, far too often, the common denominator seems to be poor general managing. Which begs the question, if they're so smart, why are they so bad at their jobs?

A fair enough question. But wouldn't it also be fair to give our new front office a decent amount of time before deciding?

 

[mac]

Yes, I tracked IT last night as I was grading him and his defense was quite poor, beyond what I had the time/space to mention in the grades. It's almost as if many times he doesn't see the screen coming. You have to set yourself up to fight over the screen as the screen is being set. You change your path and get into the ballhandler to effect the ballhandlers path so you don't get rubbed off. Get hit by the screen and you've already lost. You actually have to defend against being screened. What I saw regularly was one of two results from IT.

A) Just flat out walked/ran right into the screen and stopped. Didn't fight through, didn't follow the roll man. Just stopped.

B) Went under the screen and just kind of stood in no-man's land. Didn't go under, then close out the ballhandler, nor did he track the roll man. Just went under and pretty much stood there.

In general he was playing too far off the ballhandler, either Dragic or Bledsoe. It wasn't just the pick & roll defense and stopping the ballhandler or roll guy, he also wasn't close enough to either to shut down passing lanes. That's also a problem given his size. It's easy enough to whip passes over his head but when he's also playing 5-7 ft off the opposing PG there's little pressure on the ball. Makes it much easier for the opponent to convert back doors or to hit a shooter in rhythm, which is what we saw last night. It's the opposite of what we see with his entry passes sometimes where the opponent gets into him and he has a tough time getting it into the post. IT's defense makes it easier for the opposing PG to make whichever pass he's looking for or setting up due to minimal pressure closing down the passing lanes/angles.

I think this is part of MLM's problem on defense. He's sagging off his man too far as he expects to have to slide over and help stop penetration, then due to being a rook and inexperienced he's losing sight of his man and isn't recovering fast enough, but the initial breakdown in the last three games has been overloading to help on penetration. It's partly why MLM has been a superior on the ball defender than rotating off the ball. Defense almost always starts at the point of attack and when that isn't up to par it effects everyone else, which is what we're seeing. It puts everyone else at a disadvantage. MLM's youth just compounds it.

But if you think Isaiah Thomas makes mistakes you simply don't know basketball - Grant & Jerry.

 

[Chubbs]

I just want to know how you come to determination that they're at all smart. I don't question that they have access to more/better information about the players than we do, but I don't particularly equate better informed to smart.

As far as your context, I don't feel I took your quote out of context. I feel that the second part of your statement is not a logical conclusion of the first part, so I disregarded it. It would have been equally accurate had you said, "I think the FO is much smarter than people on this board and sees that IT is under six feet tall." I don't grok why you consider the second part of your statement to be, in any way, support of evidence of the first part of your statement, which is why I asked the question in the first place.

I've been pondering how to respond, cause you caught me. I don't think they (gms) are smart at all really.

I've been pretty clear I don't think our front office is that "smart", and that's goes for gms around the league. Some are former players with about as much sense as me or you, and many times less.

Poor choice of words on my part. The first part of the sentence was the throwaway line, not the second part. To you, clearly worth much discussion. Let's put it this way, I really HOPE the front office realizes IT is not a long term solution as the starter. But they've made a few moves that I would classify as dumb, but my HOPE is this is a work in progress.

I'm just giving some leeway, cause frankly, I expected very little until the arena opens and I'm still not sold this current team isn't built to fail, at least enough to ensure a good draft pick. I know we disagree on this point. But you must admit, not doing anything of note in the offseason then going crazy once a big hole was dug certainly didn't give much chance for team success this season.

Nope, no blind faith here that they know what they are doing.

 

[pshn80]

Mr Slim Citrus, on FOs, every game gives us a winner and a loser. Whether a FO is good or bad there is winner and a loSer. Could it be that it is rather hard to change a winning team to a loser and a losing team to a winner EVEN IF the ownership is willing to spend money. How can a new FO be responsible for seven losing seasons in a row. And if they are all wizards does that change the number of good basketball players available? A trade is made and six months later you may be able to tell whether it was a good one or not despite the informed opinions expressed on here. If it were a cinch there would be 30 cinches out there. To demonstrate my keen insight, I liked Petrie from beginning to end, and I like PD'A and am confident in his work.

 

[Chubbs]

There's a lot of luck involved. It's hard to get 12 guys that can play well together without having a Lebron or cp3 directing it.

 

[Glenn]

Mr Slim Citrus, on FOs, every game gives us a winner and a loser. Whether a FO is good or bad there is winner and a loSer. Could it be that it is rather hard to change a winning team to a loser and a losing team to a winner EVEN IF the ownership is willing to spend money. How can a new FO be responsible for seven losing seasons in a row. And if they are all wizards does that change the number of good basketball players available? A trade is made and six months later you may be able to tell whether it was a good one or not despite the informed opinions expressed on here. If it were a cinch there would be 30 cinches out there. To demonstrate my keen insight, I liked Petrie from beginning to end, and I like PD'A and am confident in his work.

You have to calm down. You are getting very wordy in your dotage. I think you are right but it requires patience and that makes for almost no conversation on a forum. With this year, there is no reason to judge this early as Vivek warned us not to expect wins right away and I think, remarkably enough, there may actually be a plan in place. I sure hope so. In any case, as bad as some of these games have been, I am cheering for what I think is important.

I never gave up on Petrie either. Questions arose but it was quite clear that there was another reason for penny pinching bad decisions. We need to teach these youngsters patience.

 

[ppine]

This team "has all kinds of firepower." They can take turns scoring and having the hot hand. I have said before, but I will keep saying it. The offense is not the problem. The Kings get over a 100 points but give up 113 or something. Even with a collection of new guys the Kings can score. Stopping the other team is what will translate into victories.

It is fun to talk about the offense, ITs role, etc but it is like looking for a lost wallet under a street light because the light is better. The wallet is in the dark alley. Start looking there.

IT gets 28 points and criticism because he didn't get enough assists. Unbelievable.

 

[Bricklayer]

This team "has all kinds of firepower." They can take turns scoring and having the hot hand. I have said before, but I will keep saying it. The offense is not the problem. The Kings get over a 100 points but give up 113 or something. Even with a collection of new guys the Kings can score. Stopping the other team is what will translate into victories.

It is fun to talk about the offense, ITs role, etc but it is like looking for a lost wallet under a street light because the light is better. The wallet is in the dark alley. Start looking there.

IT gets 28 points and criticism because he didn't get enough assists. Unbelievable.

he's a PG.

If IT can manage a growth spurt and come back next season at 6'5" he'd make a splendid SG given our mess at the position, albeit a ball dominant one that should draw out all the old anti-Reke folks. But he's a PG. Constantly making excuses for a PG who plays the game for himself and doesn't pass is like making excuses for a center who's too big of a wuss to rebound. Its a critical flaw. Just about THE critical flaw you can have at the position. He can't be that "pizza guy" running around jacking up shots willy nilly with the team as its forming up. Well he can, but he has to be off the bench if he does. If he starts with an overloaded offensive lineup he flat has to give himself up for the betterment of his teammates. That's the position. That's the team structure. IT can conform, go to the bench, or get traded. There is no "I get to continue to play for myself and still get to start" option on the table.

 

[Glenn]

he's a PG.

If IT can manage a growth spurt and come back next season at 6'5" he'd make a splendid SG given our mess at the position, albeit a ball dominant one that should draw out all the old anti-Reke folks. But he's a PG. Constantly making excuses for a PG who plays the game for himself and doesn't pass is like making excuses for a center who's too big of a wuss to rebound. Its a critical flaw. Just about THE critical flaw you can have at the position. He can't be that "pizza guy" running around jacking up shots willy nilly with the team as its forming up. Well he can, but he has to be off the bench if he does. If he starts with an overloaded offensive lineup he flat has to give himself up for the betterment of his teammates. That's the position. That's the team structure. IT can conform, go to the bench, or get traded. There is no "I get to continue to play for myself and still get to start" option on the table.

I've said it, you've said it, padrino has said it, etc., etc. I don't know what is so difficult to understand. It's not a knock on IT and if people understood that, maybe they could calm down. It's a knock on the lineup.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Mr Slim Citrus, on FOs, every game gives us a winner and a loser. Whether a FO is good or bad there is winner and a loSer. Could it be that it is rather hard to change a winning team to a loser and a losing team to a winner EVEN IF the ownership is willing to spend money. How can a new FO be responsible for seven losing seasons in a row. And if they are all wizards does that change the number of good basketball players available? A trade is made and six months later you may be able to tell whether it was a good one or not despite the informed opinions expressed on here. If it were a cinch there would be 30 cinches out there. To demonstrate my keen insight, I liked Petrie from beginning to end, and I like PD'A and am confident in his work.

To the extent that this is true, it doesn't explain why some teams get bad, and stay bad.

 

[Warhawk]

he's a PG.

If IT can manage a growth spurt and come back next season at 6'5" he'd make a splendid SG given our mess at the position, albeit a ball dominant one that should draw out all the old anti-Reke folks. But he's a PG. Constantly making excuses for a PG who plays the game for himself and doesn't pass is like making excuses for a center who's too big of a wuss to rebound. Its a critical flaw. Just about THE critical flaw you can have at the position. He can't be that "pizza guy" running around jacking up shots willy nilly with the team as its forming up. Well he can, but he has to be off the bench if he does. If he starts with an overloaded offensive lineup he flat has to give himself up for the betterment of his teammates. That's the position. That's the team structure. IT can conform, go to the bench, or get traded. There is no "I get to continue to play for myself and still get to start" option on the table.

Malone said today that IT will be getting like 40 min/game - if he can do both (pass more with 1st team and score more with 2nd team) he will be OK short-term. Like others, I think he is too short for the starting PG role. Even though he occasionally gets after it on D, he just isn't "big" enough for the long-term starting role.

 

[VF21]

Malone said today that IT will be getting like 40 min/game - if he can do both (pass more with 1st team and score more with 2nd team) he will be OK short-term. Like others, I think he is too short for the starting PG role. Even though he occasionally gets after it on D, he just isn't "big" enough for the long-term starting role.

I did subscribe to that belief, but I'm beginning to change my mind.

 

[swisshh]

IT has to play that many minutes due to RayMac's inexperience and Jimmer's limitations. I feel that Thomas has tried to be a facilitator, but posting up Cousins doesn't really use your PG that much. He isn't going to get assists doing that and his size actually hurts them there. He'll be a better creator for others off of pick n roll situations. The team needs to find another player who can feed Cousins the post in good spots. IT tries to, but his height is an actual limitation in what sort of angles he can use. McLemore has been rather bad feeding the post all year so I don't trust him there. It can maybe be Gay, but the Gay/Cousins pick n roll shows a lot of potential over the post and cut.

 

[Hadlowe]

re: GMs being smart guys. In general sure. I suspect that most GMs are roughly as intelligent as a mid-level corporate exec. That doesn't mean they're infallible. It also doesn't mean that they're all equivalent or that they all make great decisions. As much as people praise Daryl Morey, he has taken some incredibly risky moves over the last few years. Those moves happened to pay off and he was able to sign Howard over the off-season, but none of those major moves was a sure thing.

Lin could easily have busted after his breakout in NY, and is still underplaying his contract (if only slightly). Asik was a great signing last year and a miserable one this year. Overall, the risks seem to be paying dividends, but that was never a guaranteed thing.

On the other side, you have Mitch Kupchak who looked to have the sure thing last year only to watch it go down in flames.

Team chemistry and production is such a fickle, ephemeral thing. You can't moneyball basketball the way some teams (Memphis) try to do. Robin Lopez is not a good center statistically speaking, but he is a good pressure release valve for Aldridge and his presence increases team rebounding because he boxes out so well and plays his role on that team. There was no way to know that Lopez would mesh prior to making that trade.

So, yes, I think there are GM's who would want to see what Thornton could bring to their teams, his current slump notwithstanding. We would likely have to take some detritus back in return, but if it is detritus we could use (defensive guard, draft pick). There's always the GM out there who hopes that he is one three point shooting guard away from breaking into the playoff picture and Thornton fits his overall contract vision better than any other options.