If not Ben then who

[Bricklayer]

We're back to wanting Nik and now Thornton. Hilarious. Why not Jimmer? Let's bring back all the guys who couldn't beat out Ben before, because....anyone but Ben.

Look, if at any point Ben wants to put on his big boy pants and be anything but terrible, the talk of past failures at least will recede.

Thornton is an obvious no, but once upon a time before he fell on his face I had little doubt Stauskas had potential as the better roleplayer -- he appeared to actually have a feel for the game.

Now Ben being Ben, what he will probably do is have an 18pt game here. Then he'll follow it with a 11pt game. Then a 7pt game. Then a 4pt game. Then a 14pt game., Then a 2pt game. Then...

Whatever it is if he continues on averaging 5ppg on .313 shooting then he is toast. Its not cute anymore. We are trying to win. And careful observers will note that we were far from sold on him as a starter. Our very first play in free agency was to try to sign Wes Matthews. When that fell through we were attached, truthfully or not, to Monta Ellis. Finally we settled on Marco Belinelli. Ben has to do something and quickly, because he inspires zero confidence and just seems to refuse to take the bull by the horns.

P.S. These stupid contracts for non-entities actually would argue AGAINST paying Ben, because frankly there are a lot of complete NBA non-entities, D-leaguers, rookies coming in, who can give you the numbers he's putting up for a fraction of that money. You don't pay for the honor of having the least productive SG in the league. If you can find a way to control costs with an older contract, you have to consider it. The Bels, Koufos and Casspi signings right now look like absolute genius by Vlade. And if Rondo keeps on playing out, you're going to end up with a 3rd max.

 

[KingsFanGER]

Inconsistency in the statlines is pretty common for a role player with limited shot attempts. Sometimes he will hit his shots and due to that Karl will call a few plays for Ben. Sometimes he will miss and will be benched for another role player.
So far this season the top tier role players for their position Green and Lee aren't consistent too. Of course Ben was more inconsistent than those two last season, but actually nobody is saying, that Ben is a top tier role player yet.

We shouldn't be sold on Ben. He has to prove, that he belongs.
The whole point of the discussion is, if we need to get rid of him now at all costs, or if we are better off to wait and see at least one more season, unless we find a trade, that improves our SG position short- and longterm.
If it's so easy to find a D-Leaguer, that can put up Ben's production - go find one! There will be another Justin Holiday out there. I'm eager for the Kings to find those players. If we manage to find one and he impresses with his production, than we talk about trading Ben. It might even be possible, that Anderson is this player, but so far we don't know it for sure. Trading Ben, because thinking it doesn't matter, who we put out there for him, is oversimplified for me.

Control costs is a good way to go. But you don't take risks just to control the costs for a player still on a rookie deal, who isn't that bad after all and has no off court troubles. Trading for Foye means we are stuck with an even weaker SG for the season and are in desperate need to sign a FA SG next summer. We have no insurance for this position at all.
Keeping Ben means, that there might be still a chance, he figures it out. We have a small insurance in case we fail to sign a good FA SG next summer. And if we manage to sign one, we still can trade Ben.

 

[Livinthedream]

Look, if at any point Ben wants to put on his big boy pants and be anything but terrible, the talk of past failures at least will recede.

Thornton is an obvious no, but once upon a time before he fell on his face I had little doubt Stauskas had potential as the better roleplayer -- he appeared to actually have a feel for the game.

Now Ben being Ben, what he will probably do is have an 18pt game here. Then he'll follow it with a 11pt game. Then a 7pt game. Then a 4pt game. Then a 14pt game., Then a 2pt game. Then...

Whatever it is if he continues on averaging 5ppg on .313 shooting then he is toast. Its not cute anymore. We are trying to win. And careful observers will note that we were far from sold on him as a starter. Our very first play in free agency was to try to sign Wes Matthews. When that fell through we were attached, truthfully or not, to Monta Ellis. Finally we settled on Marco Belinelli. Ben has to do something and quickly, because he inspires zero confidence and just seems to refuse to take the bull by the horns.

P.S. These stupid contracts for non-entities actually would argue AGAINST paying Ben, because frankly there are a lot of complete NBA non-entities, D-leaguers, rookies coming in, who can give you the numbers he's putting up for a fraction of that money. You don't pay for the honor of having the least productive SG in the league. If you can find a way to control costs with an older contract, you have to consider it. The Bels, Koufos and Casspi signings right now look like absolute genius by Vlade. And if Rondo keeps on playing out, you're going to end up with a 3rd max.

Listen, continuing to argue that Ben's production is worse than another players when the numbers don't show it is a non starter. Ben shooting 31% in 3 games in 18 min Per game while Marco shooting 25% in 28 min per game and then telling me the Marco signing is genius leaves us with nowhere to go. It's non sequitur.

Ben is the 4th or 5th option in the starting unit. That in itself lends itself to up and down scoring numbers. There is no way around it and it's not a flaw. A ppg average is always comprised of up and down numbers. No one comes out and scores within one or two point differential of their average every night for a season. You know this.

Whether Ben stays or goes will not make or break my Christmas. But witch hunts against any Kings player, especially 3 games into a season is just too much.

Edit: I use Marco as an example. I like him. But in general a confident guy with swagger shooting 30% is not a better shooter than a perceived less confident quiet guy shooting 30%. Same thing with ppg. The numbers are what they are.

 

[Ron]

Inconsistency in the statlines is pretty common for a role player with limited shot attempts. Sometimes he will hit his shots and due to that Karl will call a few plays for Ben. Sometimes he will miss and will be benched for another role player.

Stats' inconsistency is not the issue at all, as I see it.
Ben is the only one on the team with a negative PIE (Not low, NEGATIVE!).
He's also thd lowest on the team in PER, with 3.4 (League AVG is 15...) and in almost any other similiar measure
(BMP, VORP, WS/48 etc.)

The sad thing is that these low advanced stats have been CONSISTENTLY LOW year after year...

 

[Bricklayer]

Listen, continuing to argue that Ben's production is worse than another players when the numbers don't show it is a non starter. Ben shooting 31% in 3 games in 18 min Per game while Marco shooting 25% in 28 min per game and then telling me the Marco signing is genius leaves us with nowhere to go. It's non sequitur.

Ben is the 4th or 5th option in the starting unit. That in itself lends itself to up and down scoring numbers. There is no way around it and it's not a flaw. A ppg average is always comprised of up and down numbers. No one comes out and scores within one or two point differential of their average every night for a season. You know this.

Whether Ben stays or goes will not make or break my Christmas. But witch hunts against any Kings player, especially 3 games into a season is just too much.

Edit: I use Marco as an example. I like him. But in general a confident guy with swagger shooting 30% is not a better shooter than a perceived less confident quiet guy shooting 30%. Same thing with ppg. The numbers are what they are.

If Marco weren't wearing a ring, if he'd been garbage from day 1 of his career, if he's shot .273 and been just as bad in preseason, he would be worth every bit of scrutiny too.

Not the situation. Entirely beside the point that Marco has been a hell of a lot more effective even shooting what he is shooting. Ben's been a terrible player in his career, then merely a bad player on a bad franchise, and now he's gone back to terrible. If a student who has been earning A- to B- all year long suddenly hits a D patch, you don't worry too much unless it continues for a long spell. When his classmate who started the year as an F student, briefly made it to a C, fell back to a D, then maybe a low C, and now is running in the Fs again...you worry.

 

[Livinthedream]

Stats' inconsistency is not the issue at all, as I see it.
Ben is the only one on the team with a negative PIE (Not low, NEGATIVE!).
He's also thd lowest on the team in PER, with 3.4 (League AVG is 15...) and in almost any other similiar measure
(BMP, VORP, WS/48 etc.)

The sad thing is that these low advanced stats have been CONSISTENTLY LOW year after year...

Yep. Acoording to the stats, Moreland and Curry should be starting. PER says so.

 

[Livinthedream]

If Marco weren't wearing a ring, if he'd been garbage from day 1 of his career, if he's shot .273 and been just as bad in preseason, he would be worth every bit of scrutiny too.

Not the situation. Entirely beside the point that Marco has been a hell of a lot more effective even shooting what he is shooting. Ben's been a terrible player in his career, then merely a bad player on a bad franchise, and now he's gone back to terrible. If a student who has been earning A- to B- all year long suddenly hits a D patch, you don't worry too much unless it continues for a long spell. When his classmate who started the year as an F student, briefly made it to a C, fell back to a D, then maybe a low C, and now is running in the Fs again...you worry.

Your grades are exaggerated and your measuring stick is not equal. If Belinelli gets the benefit of doubt and time to come around before scrutiny, then Ben deserves the same. He started last season slow and ramped up as well last year. It's been 3 games. I'm not even criticizing Beli. I'm using him to point out the bias in analysis.

Both of their overall shooting percentages will come up as history has shown that they are better shooters. You're being overzealous in trying to condem a player after 3 games.

 

[Padrino]

i think people get fixated on the wrong parts of the conversation. the question isn't whether or not ben mclemore is causing this team to lose, it's whether or not he's capably helping this team win. that may sound like an issue of semantics, but i think the distinction is important. right now, ben is a net negative on the court, and apart from his rare-as-a-unicorn flashes of 3&D promise, he's just not pulling his weight out there. if the kings weren't attempting to break a particularly nasty playoff drought, it wouldn't matter a bit. nor would it matter if the kings were located in the eastern conference. but the western conference is a goddamned meat grinder when you're competing for a playoff spot; the difference between a productive starter and a third-year player still recovering from a bad case of the rookie jitters could very easily be the difference between the 8th seed and the lottery...

all of that said, i don't think you can trade mclemore right now; he's on a cheap contract and he won't bring back much of anything in a straight swap, which means he probably needs to be part of a larger deal. so who do you package ben with in order to trade for a more productive SG? and would you simply be opening up holes elsewhere in the roster by doing so? besides that, i don't think major roster changes are ideal right now, anyway, especially when achieving stability and developing chemistry are as important to this team as talent. the kings will have to platoon the SG position when ben fails to produce, and karl will likely continue to try and get some use out of rondo/collison-led small ball units. ben is a weak link out there, and i think we're all just going to have to live with that fact until he finds some kind of spark. my only hope is that the kings still manage to win in spite of the slower-than-expected growing pains of ben mclemore...

 

[Livinthedream]

i think people get fixated on the wrong parts of the conversation. the question isn't whether or not ben mclemore is causing this team to lose, it's whether or not he's capably helping this team win. that may sound like an issue of semantics, but i think the distinction is important. right now, ben is a net negative on the court, and apart from his rare-as-a-unicorn flashes of 3&D promise, he's just not pulling his weight out there. if the kings weren't attempting to break a particularly nasty playoff drought, it wouldn't matter a bit. nor would it matter if the kings were located in the eastern conference. but the western conference is a goddamned meat grinder when you're competing for a playoff spot; the difference between a productive starter and a third-year player still recovering from a bad case of the rookie jitters could very easily be the difference between the 8th seed and the lottery...

all of that said, i don't think you can trade mclemore riwinnin; he's on a cheap contract and he won't bring back much of anything in a straight swap, which means he probably needs to be part of a larger deal. so who do you package ben with in order to trade for a more productive SG? and would you simply be opening up holes elsewhere in the roster by doing so? besides that, i don't think major roster changes are ideal right now, anyway, especially when achieving stability and developing chemistry are as important to this team as talent. the kings will have to platoon the SG position when ben fails to produce, and karl will likely continue to try and get some use out of rondo/collison-led small ball units. ben is a weak link out there, and i think we're all just going to have to live with that fact until he finds some kind of spark. my only hope is that the kings still manage to win in spite of the slower-than-expected growing pains of ben mclemore...

Then the question is if he's so horrible and brings the team down, then why even start him? Why haven't all 3 or 4 coaches he's had so far figured this out? Both GMs missed it. If he's been the difference or is, then get rid of him now. But the coaches haven't seen it that way.

The funny thing is, enough people said the ideal situation is to reduce Ben's minutes and in games he's not producing, have a vet backup to fill in. We have that exact situation now and those same people are losing their minds after 3 games.

 

[One and Done]

Ben continues to show little between the eyes...or legs for that matter. I'm still hopeful, but the clock is a'tickin.

On that note: thoughts on Ben/Rudy for Anderson/Pondexter?

 

[Bricklayer]

Ben continues to show little between the eyes...or legs for that matter. I'm still hopeful, but the clock is a'tickin.

On that note: thoughts on Ben/Rudy for Anderson/Pondexter?

No no.

We can't undersell Rudy like that. If Rondo is good to go we've got the talent to compete with almost anybody. You don't want to change that.

 

[206Fan]

Ben continues to show little between the eyes...or legs for that matter. I'm still hopeful, but the clock is a'tickin.

On that note: thoughts on Ben/Rudy for Anderson/Pondexter?

No way...Anderson would automatically be our #2 scorer who has to come off the bench.

It doesn't fix SG either. Pondexter could pass as a SG, but you just made a huge hole at SF. I'm not prepared to see Casspi play 30mins a game.... He's the guard/forward version of Cuz...or the SF version of JWill.

 

[Livinthedream]

Ben continues to show little between the eyes...or legs for that matter. I'm still hopeful, but the clock is a'tickin.

On that note: thoughts on Ben/Rudy for Anderson/Pondexter?

Rudy stays. Playing really well with Rondo. Pondexter is minimally productive. If at all.

Then we'd have a SF hole to fill.

 

[lawlman91]

Rudy stays because he's a good contributor and for chemistry sake.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

Gerald Henderson?

 

[lawlman91]

Gerald Henderson?

Marshall Henderson?

 

[twslam07]

Check out Anderson's game log from his last season. His shooting is no more consistent than Ben's.

I don't mind having Anderson as a 3rd SG. I just don't think he offers enough of an upgrade right now to make up for what we give up longer term. We're in a unique situation but I don't think many teams fighting for the 8th seed would make that short term of a decision.

I know many people like to callout that McLemore isn't consistent when compared to Anderson, but that actually seems to be untrue when looking at their last full season in the league. McLemore has a smaller standard deviaiton in FG%, 3PT%, FT%, PPG, RPG, APG, SPG, & BPG. Anderson has a lower standard deviation in TOPG.

For those of you not familiar with how standard deviations work, this suggests that McLemore has less variability game to game. Someone who scores 10, 12, 8, 11, & 9 points over 5 games will have a much lower standard deviation than someone who scores 6, 2, 18, 4, & 20 points.

So for those clamoring that Anderson should take McLemore's spot in the roster because of his consistency, I urge you to look a little more closely.

 

[Ron]

Yep. Acoording to the stats, Moreland and Curry should be starting. PER says so.

No it doesn't. (Don't grasp...)

Seth and Erik combined have 10 mins of NBA career action for the Kings (In total, not average...), even if you add-in the full length of last season for Moreland...
That's literally NO sample-size. Leave them out please.

Ben's low PER, on the other hand, is demonstrated in 2,725 minutes, if you add-in last year's stats.
You just can't have a bigger sample-size (Ben played all 3 games this year, and full 82 games last year. He registered more minutes than any other King)

 

[Livinthedream]

No it doesn't. (Don't grasp...)

Seth and Erik combined have 10 mins of NBA career action for the Kings (In total, not average...), even if you add-in the full length of last season for Moreland...
That's literally NO sample-size. Leave them out please.

Ben's low PER, on the other hand, is demonstrated in 2,725 minutes, if you add-in last year's stats.
You just can't have a bigger sample-size (Ben played all 3 games this year, and full 82 games last year. He registered more minutes than any other King)

I got it. Derrick Williams, Ryan Collins, Reggie Evans and Carl Landry should have been playing ahead of Jason Williams. Bhullar is a beast too. So says PER.

We're clear now.

Edit: I know what you're saying and I'm not trying to discount your point. However, what I'm saying is there is context. When you're asked to stand in the corner and when the shot goes up run back as fast as you can, you're impact on the game will be small. His role had a major impact on His advanced stats.

 

[Ron]

I got it. Derrick Williams, Ryan Collins, Reggie Evans and Carl Landry should have been playing ahead of Jason Williams. Bhullar is a beast too. So says PER.

We're clear now.

Edit: I know what you're saying and I'm not trying to discount your point. However, what I'm saying is there is context. When you're asked to stand in the corner and when the shot goes up run back as fast as you can, you're impact on the game will be small. His role had a major impact on His advanced stats.

Bhullar? Did you read my post at all?

Edit: As to context - I think you're wrong.
On a full-season scale (82 full games, 30 minutes per game!) advanced stats don't lie.
(and who's Jason Williams, BTW?)

 

[Livinthedream]

Did you read my post at all?

Edit: You're wrong.
On a full-season scale (82 full games, 30 minutes per game!) advanced stats don't lie.
(and who's Jason Williams?)

I read your post. Did you read mines? Stats don't have context.

I meant Jason Thompson.

 

[Ron]

I read your post. Did you read mines? Stats don't have context.

I meant Jason Thompson.

Stats don't need context when they are so overwhelming and well based.

On a full-season scale (82 full games, 30 minutes per game!), stats - advanced or traditional - don't lie.

If you perform your role well - basicly any role - it will show.

 

[VF21]

i think people get fixated on the wrong parts of the conversation. the question isn't whether or not ben mclemore is causing this team to lose, it's whether or not he's capably helping this team win.

Bingo.

 

[KingMilz]

Fournier just went for 30 after going for 19 and 22 before that so yeah Ben will not be enough.........

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Awesome. So... we can get the Magic to trade us Fournier, right?

 

[beb0p]

The biggest problem with BMac, even in college, is that his game is too dependent on hitting the jump shots, when that shot is not falling he has nothing to fall back on. People kept saying he just need more confidence, it's not confidence he needs it's skill. I have yet to see him developing an escape dribble pull up, floater, or even a post up game that would have complimented his outside shooting. On the defensive side, he is decent but not good enough to be a stopper. Until he gets better, he is essentially Trenton Hassell with less defense and better shooting. I personally don't think he is as good a 3-pt shooter as he is advertised and he (and the coaching staff) may get better result if he takes more long twos and less threes.

At this point, I'm intrigued by Seth Curry. He's undersized and overmatched physically at the 2 but I think he may be able to make some shots, which our two SGs haven't able to do enough.
.

 

[beb0p]

We're back to wanting Nik and now Thornton. Hilarious. Why not Jimmer? Let's bring back all the guys who couldn't beat out Ben before, because....anyone but Ben.

Sadly, Jimmer's career 40% 3-pt shooting with the Kings is looking mighty good right now.

I would take Nik back in a heart beat. Always think he has a higher ceiling more of a sure thing than BMac.
.

 

[Livinthedream]

I'd love to see what Curry can do. He's not going to be a SG though.

 

[Livinthedream]

Sadly, Jimmer's career 40% 3-pt shooting with the Kings is looking mighty good right now.

I would take Nik back in a heart beat. Always think he has a higher ceiling more of a sure thing than BMac.
.

Not even going to touch this.

 

[lawlman91]

The biggest problem with BMac, even in college, is that his game is too dependent on hitting the jump shots, when that shot is not falling he has nothing to fall back on. People kept saying he just need more confidence, it's not confidence he needs it's skill. I have yet to see him developing an escape dribble pull up, floater, or even a post up game that would have complimented his outside shooting. On the defensive side, he is decent but not good enough to be a stopper. Until he gets better, he is essentially Trenton Hassell with less defense and better shooting. I personally don't think he is as good a 3-pt shooter as he is advertised and he (and the coaching staff) may get better result if he takes more long twos and less threes.

At this point, I'm intrigued by Seth Curry. He's undersized and overmatched physically at the 2 but I think he may be able to make some shots, which our two SGs haven't able to do enough.
.

He has a dribble pull up as well as a step back. It's just that whenever he does that we've only seen him miss. I'd like to see him take it to the basket more, which I've been seeing recently. Two-footed layups, I mean. Contact and whatnot.