[Grades] Grades v. Suns 3/25/2015

[Capt. Factorial]

I don't think Slim would disagree that it's a legit strategy. It also SUCKS for fans to watch. Just because something is smart and effective doesn't mean that it is good.

Well, it may not be fun to watch, but getting wins on the margins is the name of the game, and I would call that "good".

Let's be honest - if I told you that the Kings would be in 20 games where they were in position to use the intentional fouling strategy next year and you had one of two options:

1) Kings use intentional foul strategy in every game possible, win two of those games, finish 51-31 and make the playoffs by one game
2) Kings decline to use intentional foul strategy, win zero of those games, finish 49-33 and miss the playoff by a game

You'd choose option #1, no matter how much you don't like intentional fouling. It's a good (= smart and effective) strategy, and you'd sacrifice those 100-150 minutes of torture and timeouts for the payoff of the playoffs.

 

[VF21]

Which would make PDA Saruman? Or is PDA Theoden, and Vivek Saruman? I ask because I am trying to figure out who gets killed in the Scouring of the Shire later on.

The one thing PDA seems to be - at least right now - is MIA. I for one can't recall seeing him since Vlade arrived.

 

[Hadlowe]

Well, it may not be fun to watch, but getting wins on the margins is the name of the game, and I would call that "good".

Let's be honest - if I told you that the Kings would be in 20 games where they were in position to use the intentional fouling strategy next year and you had one of two options:

1) Kings use intentional foul strategy in every game possible, win two of those games, finish 51-31 and make the playoffs by one game
2) Kings decline to use intentional foul strategy, win zero of those games, finish 49-33 and miss the playoff by a game

You'd choose option #1, no matter how much you don't like intentional fouling. It's a good (= smart and effective) strategy, and you'd sacrifice those 100-150 minutes of torture and timeouts for the payoff of the playoffs.

Yes, I would do it every single time, which is the kind of the entire problem. The tactic interrupts the game and is a bore to watch. It also tends to drive away casual fans. The perverse incentive to win games by doing something that doesn't *feel* like basketball means fewer fans on the margins and lowers the appeal of the league to folks who aren't junkies (like us.) I have been an advocate for a rule change on this point for a while now. Commissioner Silver hasn't been taking my calls, though.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

No its not it's a perfectly legit strategy if you can hit ft's that's your problem.

This post has no impact on the truth of my statement.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Well, it may not be fun to watch, but getting wins on the margins is the name of the game, and I would call that "good".

Let's be honest - if I told you that the Kings would be in 20 games where they were in position to use the intentional fouling strategy next year and you had one of two options:

1) Kings use intentional foul strategy in every game possible, win two of those games, finish 51-31 and make the playoffs by one game
2) Kings decline to use intentional foul strategy, win zero of those games, finish 49-33 and miss the playoff by a game

You'd choose option #1, no matter how much you don't like intentional fouling. It's a good (= smart and effective) strategy, and you'd sacrifice those 100-150 minutes of torture and timeouts for the payoff of the playoffs.

This post also has no impact on the truth of my statement. Given those two choices, and only those two choices, I would lie back, and think of England. That doesn't make it any less of a ***** move.

 

[hrdboild]

Your draft odd numbers are wrong.

We are currently no 6, giving us a 21.4% chance at a top 3 pick.

Change our 4-0 streak to 0-4 and we would still be 2 loses behind Orlando for no. 5. At 5, the odds of getting to the top 3 jump to 29.2% (and 62% odds of picking 5th or 6th). To get to number 4 we would have to catch the Lakers or Sixers, which was near impossible.

You're making my point for me. From 5th to 6th the odds of a top 3 pick drop from 29.2% to 21.4%. Drop 2 more positions to #8 and they fall all the way to 10%. If we slide all the way to 8th, we have very little chance of ending up in the top 3.

Where you're incorrect is in your tabulation of losses. Losses matter for playoff spots because teams haven't played the same number of games yet and you can make up wins as long as you still have games to play but you can't take losses off the board. Conversely, wins are what matter for lottery seeding because you can't take those off the board. Change our 4-0 run to 0-4 and we would have the same number of wins as Orlando putting us in a virtual tie for 5th. 4 wins in a row took us from a decent chance at the 5th spot and 29.2% odds to a decent chance at the 8th spot and 10% odds. We play LA twice at the end of the season. Those are almost guaranteed wins. I'm concerned that all hope of a top 3 pick may have just evaporated overnight.

What exactly are you proposing? That the Kings shouldn't have hired Karl?? You want to risk stalling any progress, alienating our best players, and going into a multi-year tailspin to improve by around 10% (where you are STILL statistically likely NOT to get a top 3 pick)

Well for one thing I thought we should have waited another month to hire George Karl, and argued exactly that on this forum at the time. Orlando was kicking the tires but that organization actually knows what they're doing and they're not interested in winning a bunch of games at the end of the year. Karl wanted to come to Sacramento anyway. Cousins and Gay are a decent enough start to stake his reputation on. As for the rest, you're telling me that one month of George Karl is all that held us back from the apocalypse and I find that incredibly hard to believe. DeMarcus was upset, everybody looked unhappy. Fans were asking uncomfortable questions. Fine. Anybody with any sense knows what the long-term goal is. Casual basketball fans are paying the bills, not the diehards like us and those fans will come when the team is winning, period. Nothing else -- not the coach of the team, not end of the year momentum, not DeMarcus' body language in media sessions -- is going to influence them more than that.

 

[captain bill]

You're making my point for me. From 5th to 6th the odds of a top 3 pick drop from 29.2% to 21.4%. Drop 2 more positions to #8 and they fall all the way to 10%. If we slide all the way to 8th, we have very little chance of ending up in the top 3.

Where you're incorrect is in your tabulation of losses. Losses matter for playoff spots because teams haven't played the same number of games yet and you can make up wins as long as you still have games to play but you can't take losses off the board. Conversely, wins are what matter for lottery seeding because you can't take those off the board. Change our 4-0 run to 0-4 and we would have the same number of wins as Orlando putting us in a virtual tie for 5th. 4 wins in a row took us from a decent chance at the 5th spot and 29.2% odds to a decent chance at the 8th spot and 10% odds. We play LA twice at the end of the season. Those are almost guaranteed wins. I'm concerned that all hope of a top 3 pick may have just evaporated overnight.



Well for one thing I thought we should have waited another month to hire George Karl, and argued exactly that on this forum at the time. Orlando was kicking the tires but that organization actually knows what they're doing and they're not interested in winning a bunch of games at the end of the year. Karl wanted to come to Sacramento anyway. Cousins and Gay are a decent enough start to stake his reputation on. As for the rest, you're telling me that one month of George Karl is all that held us back from the apocalypse and I find that incredibly hard to believe. DeMarcus was upset, everybody looked unhappy. Fans were asking uncomfortable questions. Fine. Anybody with any sense knows what the long-term goal is. Casual basketball fans are paying the bills, not the diehards like us and those fans will come when the team is winning, period. Nothing else -- not the coach of the team, not end of the year momentum, not DeMarcus' body language in media sessions -- is going to influence them more than that.

1. Do you not understand that we owe a pick to Chicago? If we fall out of the top 10 we send the pick then have the ability to trade a 1st. Otherwise, we can't trade a pick for several years.

The ability to trade a pick makes it easier to pick up a quality veteran contributor, which IMO has a much higher probability of contributing to us winning immediately and therefore to keeping Cousins. A pick in the 3-8 range is much more of a gamble.

2. Not hiring Karl is flirting with disaster. Maybe he doesn't want to come in after the break, not being give time to work with the players. Maybe Orlando makes him an offer he can't refuse. Maybe over the summer some vacancies open up in OKC, Chicago, or another solid franchise that swipes up Karl before we can.



So you're plan is to tank an entire season, going all in on maximizing our odds in the draft (which can easily end up at 4, as we all know), banking everything on a "can't-miss" rookie and praying he has a better career than Beasley or Oden, and then trying to sign our coaching target over the summer with ten other teams courting him.

Oh, and that means another 3 or 4 months of the franchise looking completely rudderless. And, by the way, the pick has to be an absolute stud (and soon) because Demarcus will be due an extension in year 3 of the kid's career, and we likely won't get another draft pick until 2017.

 

[upinsmoke]

This post has no impact on the truth of my statement.

Your statement has no "truth" it's merely an opinion.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Nah, it's true. Empirical, even.

 

[hrdboild]

1. Do you not understand that we owe a pick to Chicago? If we fall out of the top 10 we send the pick then have the ability to trade a 1st. Otherwise, we can't trade a pick for several years.

The ability to trade a pick makes it easier to pick up a quality veteran contributor, which IMO has a much higher probability of contributing to us winning immediately and therefore to keeping Cousins. A pick in the 3-8 range is much more of a gamble.

I'm not arguing this anymore, I've already done it too many times. Suffice it to say, I strongly disagree.

2. Not hiring Karl is flirting with disaster. Maybe he doesn't want to come in after the break, not being give time to work with the players. Maybe Orlando makes him an offer he can't refuse. Maybe over the summer some vacancies open up in OKC, Chicago, or another solid franchise that swipes up Karl before we can.

I was fine with hiring him April 1st. Like I said before, Orlando wouldn't have outbid us on Karl or rather he wouldn't have taken their offer with ours on the table.

So you're plan is to tank an entire season, going all in on maximizing our odds in the draft (which can easily end up at 4, as we all know), banking everything on a "can't-miss" rookie and praying he has a better career than Beasley or Oden, and then trying to sign our coaching target over the summer with ten other teams courting him.

Oh, and that means another 3 or 4 months of the franchise looking completely rudderless. And, by the way, the pick has to be an absolute stud (and soon) because Demarcus will be due an extension in year 3 of the kid's career, and we likely won't get another draft pick until 2017.

I already answered this. My plan was to keep Coach Malone and repair the bench. That plan is over now. In December I wanted us to hire George Karl right away, before all of the early season momentum was gone. That plan is also kaput. Once it became clear the season was already sunk (by decisions I vehemently disagreed with) I reacted by suggesting we keep our lottery pick and work toward making this off-season as strong as possible. Also I've never endorsed banking our hope on a top 3 rookie. What I've endorsed is using a top 3 pick in this draft (a much more valuable asset than a protected future pick) to acquire the defensive PF we need to be competitive every night. Failing that, I would use it on Karl Towns or Emmanuel Mudiay and develop them instead. We don't need another superstar anyway so much as we need specific types of players which we may not be able to acquire via free agency or trade.

The three or four months of the franchise looking completely rudderless already happened. I never wanted that. But I am willing to adapt to our current situation and ensure that we get back on track as soon as possible. And the higher we pick in the draft, the more ammunition we have to improve the team this off-season. Even if we can't trade it, the pick does not have to be a stud to prevent a Cousins mutiny, they just have to be good enough to play in the rotation and help us compete for the playoffs. We don't need to draft the next Lebron to compete for the playoffs. The next Brandon Knight or Michael Carter Williams would be sufficient. None of these outrageous claims you're making are coming from me. I was very clear that I only endorse losing games when it's the All-Star break and you have 18 wins and the playoffs are already a mathematical impossibility.

 

[captain bill]

I'm not arguing this anymore, I've already done it too many times. Suffice it to say, I strongly disagree.

You have not in this thread addressed the Chicago pick / Stepien Rule issue, which is where your argument falls apart completely.

I'm not sure why you are harping on the Malone firing and delay in hiring Karl. Everyone knows it was a massive disaster, but it is entirely irrelevant to what is happening today and moving forward.

 

[twslam07]

You have not in this thread addressed the Chicago pick / Stepien Rule issue, which is where your argument falls apart completely.

I'm not sure why you are harping on the Malone firing and delay in hiring Karl. Everyone knows it was a massive disaster, but it is entirely irrelevant to what is happening today and moving forward.

I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with his/her point.

He's/she's talking about how these wins at the end of the season COULD potentially hurt us more than it can help us. We might end up as the 7th worst team (by winning out a lot more of our games) and still land a top 3 pick. In that case, no harm, no foul. However, he/she would prefer it if we continued to lose giving us the best possible chance at getting a top 3 pick. It still might not happen, but to him/her, it is worth it because that's the sort of player that can help lift a franchise.

He/she has another rationale why it's worth it to forego winning for the remainder of the year and it's based around how momentum from March does not carryover into October. This belief seems to drive his/her reasoning of losing to give ourselves the best chance to add the most elite prospect we can. I hope you can see how someone who thinks winning (when completely out of playoff contention) at the end of the year has no value to us if they believe that momentum theory. That's just in a nutshell. That's not even taking into consideration a draft pick next year. However, when you do consider that the worse record you have, the better chance you have at landing a top 3 pick, you can see where he/she is coming from.

Again, I'm not sure how our pick having stipulations on it has anything to do with the point he/she is trying to make...

 

[hrdboild]

You have not in this thread addressed the Chicago pick / Stepien Rule issue, which is where your argument falls apart completely.

I'm not sure why you are harping on the Malone firing and delay in hiring Karl. Everyone knows it was a massive disaster, but it is entirely irrelevant to what is happening today and moving forward.

It's relevant to show you how little your version of my argument (which begins where you said "So your plan...") aligns with my actual argument. And I talked about the Chicago pick at the All Star break. Here I'll help you:

search: "future pick" "hrdboild"

1) http://www.kingsfans.com/threads/our-remaining-schedule-george-karls-history-and-the-fate-of-our-draft-pick.59525/#post-1154421

2) http://www.kingsfans.com/threads/wh...have-a-winning-team.59922/page-4#post-1161933

3) http://www.kingsfans.com/threads/our-remaining-schedule-george-karls-history-and-the-fate-of-our-draft-pick.59525/page-4#post-1155631

4) http://www.kingsfans.com/threads/our-remaining-schedule-george-karls-history-and-the-fate-of-our-draft-pick.59525/page-4#post-1155577

5) http://www.kingsfans.com/threads/play-to-win-or-keep-our-pick.59423/page-2#post-1152158

 

[Bricklayer]

No its not it's a perfectly legit strategy if you can't hit ft's that's your problem.

No, its a perversion. At least the hack a shacking. Fouls are by definition meant to keep the defensive team from cheating. They are there to help the offensive team overcome that cheating. To use a rules exploit to make a defensive foul into a weapon against the offense...no. They need to do something about that. I know they've talked about it, but its time.

My simplest solution is just to make off the ball fouls FTs or side out at the discretion of the fouled team, clock reset to 14 sec if there is less left. If somebody passes it to DeAndre Jordan then sure, hey that's on them. But I shouldn't be able to stop your offensive play by running over and slapping your center standing 60ft away under his own hoop.

Alternate solution is just to allow those centers to slap right back -- HARD.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

Alternate solution: professional athlete acquires a rudimentary basketball skill?

 

[Bricklayer]

Alternate solution: professional athlete acquires a rudimentary basketball skill?

Its a lot less rudimentary skill to a certain size of professional athlete.

There is nothing else like this anywhere in the game, nor should there be. A team can't run up to a PG and say ok, now you have to go rebound, or post up or block a shot. Why should they be able to run up to a big guy, without the ball, not involved in the play, and say ok now you have to go hit a jumper, or a free throw, or thread the needle for an assist?

They shouldn't. This is a rules EXPLOIT, nothing else. Its half a step from a cheat. Its like figuring out the programming glitch in a video game and standing behind the bullet proof wall and mowing down an entire roomful of opponents. Is it possible? Sure. is it honorable? No. Is it the way the game was intended to be played? No. Does it make sense? No. Hacking people not involved in the play to force them to do something to help your team is just dumb.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

Its a lot less rudimentary skill to a certain size of professional athlete.

There is nothing else like this anywhere in the game, nor should there be. A team can't run up to a PG and say ok, now you have to go rebound, or post up or block a shot. Why should they be able to run up to a big guy, without the ball, not involved in the play, and say ok now you have to go hit a jumper, or a free throw, or thread the needle for an assist?

They shouldn't. This is a rules EXPLOIT, nothing else. Its half a step from a cheat. Its like figuring out the programming glitch in a video game and standing behind the bullet proof wall and mowing down an entire roomful of opponents. Is it possible? Sure. is it honorable? No. Is it the way the game was intended to be played? No. Does it make sense? No. Hacking people not involved in the play to force them to do something to help your team is just dumb.

It it honorable?
No, but if you shoot below 70% from the line, you should probably be embarrassed. I would be embarrassed as a basketball fan to see the rules changed to coddle a tiny subgroup of players.

The way the game was intended to be played?
Free throws are not a guard skill, or a forward skill, they are a basketball skill. The free throw line's been at 15 feet from the basket since 1895(!). 50 years before Mikan invented the big man role. Plenty of big men have been adequate, and plenty have been terrible at the line and still had good careers (Wilt, and Shaq come to mind)

Does it make sense?
I think it makes sense for competitive reality to force a certain level of fundamental ability from players, or else be punished for lack thereof.

 

[Gilles]

You're making my point for me. From 5th to 6th the odds of a top 3 pick drop from 29.2% to 21.4%. Drop 2 more positions to #8 and they fall all the way to 10%. If we slide all the way to 8th, we have very little chance of ending up in the top 3...

Relax, Denver and Detroit are winning/won tonight, it's back to two games margin, and both teams are actually trying to win - Kings are finishing 6th from the bottom.

1. Do you not understand that we owe a pick to Chicago? If we fall out of the top 10 we send the pick then have the ability to trade a 1st. Otherwise, we can't trade a pick for several years...

After you use the pick this year, you call Chicago: "Do you want the pick next season? Give me a bag of chips, and you can have it! You're willing to give up two bags? Deal!" Problem solved!

 

[Bricklayer]

It it honorable?
No, but if you shoot below 70% from the line, you should probably be embarrassed. I would be embarrassed as a basketball fan to see the rules changed to coddle a tiny subgroup of players.

The way the game was intended to be played?
Free throws are not a guard skill, or a forward skill, they are a basketball skill. The free throw line's been at 15 feet from the basket since 1895(!). 50 years before Mikan invented the big man role. Plenty of big men have been adequate, and plenty have been terrible at the line and still had good careers (Wilt, and Shaq come to mind)

Does it make sense?
I think it makes sense for competitive reality to force a certain level of fundamental ability from players, or else be punished for lack thereof.

That makes NO sense.

There is a fundamental gap between a player's limitations causing a team to design plays around it -- that's what any limitation does. If your guy can't shoot, you put him inside. If your guy can't defend, maybe you go zone. Whatever. A team has to use its personnel carefully to work around their limitations. And if Hack-a-Shaq was about hacking a poor FT shooter while they had the ball, that balance would be retained.

Hack a Shaq is not about that. Hack a Shaq is about not even letting a player play no matter what the offense does. No defense should ever be able to dictate that you can just not even play. That's MASSIVE overreach. And its entirely unintentional. people defend this cheapass tactic like its some hoary and intentional part of basketball. Its not. The rule was put in for other purposes, and somebody (Nellie) figured out how to twist it. Correcting that is setting the game back to the way it was meant to me, not the opposite. I can only imagine the joy if some cheap son of a ***** had figured this out back in Wilt's day.

 

[Gilles]

There are still some legitimate fouling off the ball like preventing from getting into position or hacking, when a player is about to offer himself for a dunk. You can't outlaw these out, so, while pathetically obvious hacking will go away, problem will still stay in less obvious way.

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

That makes NO sense.

There is a fundamental gap between a player's limitations causing a team to design plays around it -- that's what any limitation does. If your guy can't shoot, you put him inside. If your guy can't defend, maybe you go zone. Whatever. A team has to use its personnel carefully to work around their limitations. And if Hack-a-Shaq was about hacking a poor FT shooter while they had the ball, that balance would be retained.

Hack a Shaq is not about that. Hack a Shaq is about not even letting a player play no matter what the offense does. No defense should ever be able to dictate that you can just not even play. That's MASSIVE overreach. And its entirely unintentional. people defend this cheapass tactic like its some hoary and intentional part of basketball. Its not. The rule was put in for other purposes, and somebody (Nellie) figured out how to twist it. Correcting that is setting the game back to the way it was meant to me, not the opposite. I can only imagine the joy if some cheap son of a ***** had figured this out back in Wilt's day.

It is completely intentional that free throws be the currency that prevents a player from being bullied off the court. "Hack a Shaq" exposes a perverse specialization in a handful of players, who will have their role curtailed until they finish developing their skillset. It doesn't prevent them from contributing over the course of a game.

As for why Wilt never had to deal with this; maybe the three point shot altered the calculus? Maybe it was pointless as Wilt would always be taking the last minute shots?

Maybe if Wilt had to deal with this, future generations of big men would be better prepared?

 

[Bricklayer]

There are still some legitimate fouling off the ball like preventing from getting into position or hacking, when a player is about to offer himself for a dunk. You can't outlaw these out, so, while pathetically obvious hacking will go away, problem will still stay in less obvious way.

Sure, and hence why my side out option solution solves the problem in a minimally invasive way. If a team is being interfered with like that and wants to take the FTs as normal, fine. If they are just being ****ed with by a rules exploit, they can just take it on the side.

A slightly more invasive change would be allowing off the ball fouls over the foul limit to be shot by the player of the offensive team's choice. But I like that less precisely because it can scoop up relatively legitimate activity. The side out option is just an option for the offensive team to defend itself against a B.S. tactic, but it doesn't actually hurt defensive teams making legitimate plays.

Unfortunately my preferred "he started it!" option where the big guy to be hacked is allowed to punch anybody in the nose who runs up and randomly assaults him just for standing on the basketball court probably won't fly in today's wussified age. Really might be the most efficient though. People underestimate the power of deterrence to do your legislating for you. A couple of broken noses and the tactic dries right on up.

 

[Bricklayer]

It is completely intentional that free throws be the currency that prevents a player from being bullied off the court.

And this BTW is simply factually wrong.

Fouls are there to protect the offensive player, PERIOD. (excepting offensive fouls of course, which does not apply). At the point fouls are HARMING the offensive player their purpose has been perverted.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Sure, and hence why my side out option solution solves the problem in a minimally invasive way. If a teams i being interfered with like that and wants to take the FTs as normal, fine. If they are just being ****ed with by a rules exploit, they can just take it on the side.

Actually, a rule change in this spirit would basically end the intentional fouling strategy. If that's what the league ever wants to do, the rule change is simple:

Rule X.x: In the final two minutes of the fourth quarter or the final two minutes of any overtime period, on any defensive or loose-ball foul during which the fouled team in is the bonus, the fouled team shall have the option of attempting any free throws they are entitled to or to bring the ball in from the side. If the team elects to bring the ball in from the side: A) The inbounds shall be from the mid-court line, B) The inbounds pass may enter into the backcourt, C) The defense may not enter the backcourt until the ball is touched with a violation of this rule being a one-shot team technical foul, D) The shot clock will be set to the current shot or 14 seconds, whichever is greater.

The uncontested inbounds is necessary here. A (standard) contested inbounds would probably give GREATER incentive to foul intentionally because it gives a good opportunity for a steal or a five-second call WITHOUT the fouled team getting free throws.

Anyway, a rule like this would basically end the strategy of intentional fouling because you get nothing for it. Teams would still have the strategy to play aggressive defense for steals, but simply fouling would get them nowhere. And the end of the game would go a lot faster. I doubt the NBA would institute a rule like this, but it would be interesting to test something like this out in preseason to see how it goes.

 

[Gilles]

...

Anyway, a rule like this would basically end the strategy of intentional fouling because you get nothing for it. Teams would still have the strategy to play aggressive defense for steals, but simply fouling would get them nowhere. And the end of the game would go a lot faster. I doubt the NBA would institute a rule like this, but it would be interesting to test something like this out in preseason to see how it goes.

I very much doubt anyone would hack Deandre or use simple intentional fouls to stop the clock in a pre-season game. Make it at least a Summer League one - those are truly important for some teams. On a serious note, D-League is probably the way to go.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I very much doubt anyone would hack Deandre or use simple intentional fouls to stop the clock in a pre-season game. Make it at least a Summer League one - those are truly important for some teams. On a serious note, D-League is probably the way to go.

Yeah, you're right.