Interesting article on Walton's coaching ability:

[bajaden]

And BTW the article is WRONG on a lot of points. Those numbers aren't at all what they appear to be. They didn't run many 5 out sets at all and when Walton did it was like pulling teeth or as a last resort late in the clock. Also, Fox's breakout games always correlated the way they should have, with an open paint. I logged some of the possessions that resulted in many of the problems in real time in the game threads within the bubble. Also his reluctance on putting shooting as a priority when spreading was what was most frustrating. Like benching a Buddy Hield in favor of a Cory Joseph and watching Luka dump Wilt numbers all over him anyway. Walton would typically run senseless motion and as Joerger did, even some completely embarrassing weave style hand off ball like his predecessor.

After I had read this article, I went and watched a few of the Kings games I had recorded. Obviously your watching a different game than I'am. I saw a lot of five out's and four out and one in sets. I saw little player movement or ball movement, and when there was ball movement, it was many times excessive. Meaning they passed up open shots to move the ball to get an open shot. When Buddy came in, too many times it turned into lets stand here and watch Buddy. No cutters.

Sure I could find examples of them running good plays, and those plays worked. But they were far and few between. Almost all the problems on the floor are a result of bad, or no coaching. Fox even admitted that there were times when he felt lost, which comes from lack of direction. From what I hear were stuck with him for another year, which means were into on the job training now. I'm not a huge fan of Cory Joseph because he's a ball pounder with little court vision, but in the last five minutes of a close game, Buddy is a liability. He's a terrible defender, careless with the ball at critical moments of the game.

Buddy has an Offrtg of 108.9 while having a Defrtg of 111.9. That's a net minus of 3.1. He has a usage rate of 26.3, which is way too high in my opinion. Whether you liked Joerger or not, Buddy was a better player under him. Joerger held him accountable and had him taking more assisted shots than unassisted. Little things win games. Turnovers at the beginning of a game are as important as those at the end. Maybe if you do all the little things right at the beginning of the game, it won't come down to a last second shot to win. If the most important thing to a player is whether he starts or not, then I have no use for him. Unless his name is Kevin Durant, or Lebron James etc. The name Buddy doesn't do it for me.

 

[bajaden]

I combed through the article. It was good. A few nagging thoughts: why does it work for GSW, the article failed to address counters--what happens when the first, designed play collapses? Then I remembered a John Wooden belief that even if you're the best coach in the world, you can't win without good players.

If you think that the Kings are running the same plays the Warriors run, then your mistaken. The Warriors have a lot of player movement without the ball. Fox once said that the hardest player in the NBA for him to guard was Curry because he never stops moving. There's nothing wrong with a five out or a four out set. It's what you do off those sets that matters. The Mav's run those same sets, but then you have Doncic constantly driving into the lane, drawing the defense and kicking. Were most effective in those sets when Fox does a similar thing, which is why the ball should be in his hands most of the time he's in the game.

Too often the ball is in Bogi's hands or Buddy's hands or Joseph's hands. Bogi will duplicate what Fox does to some extent, getting into the lane and finding a cutter. Unfortunately, too many times there isn't a cutter and Bogi ends up taking a contested shot. All Buddy and Joseph do is pound the ball and burn clock. Look, I'm not trying to denigrate Buddy. Buddy isn't a ballhandler, and he isn't a passer, or at least those two things are not his strengths. What he's good at is shooting. So the job of the coach is to get him as many open shots as he can. Buddy shoot's a much higher percentage off catch and shoots than he does off the dribble creating for himself.

 

[Groovygreg]

The Kings almost always look outcoached and disjointed offensively.

 

[Albatros]

It's about discipline really. There were stretches in the season where we played some really good basketball and stretches of good D as well.

Waltons favourite buzz like is to watch tape but there doesn't seem to be any progress, if you watch tape you're trying to remove the mistakes not increase them.

This team isn't like the spurs they have no ability to read and react, when the first play call breaks down they're stuck and you get buddy on top of the key dribbling it off his shoe.

We have Harry Giles Bogi and Fox that should be enough to get a good shot most times down the floor if you just run corner actions.

 

[SacTownKid]

After I had read this article, I went and watched a few of the Kings games I had recorded. Obviously your watching a different game than I'am. I saw a lot of five out's and four out and one in sets. I saw little player movement or ball movement, and when there was ball movement, it was many times excessive. Meaning they passed up open shots to move the ball to get an open shot. When Buddy came in, too many times it turned into lets stand here and watch Buddy. No cutters.

Sure I could find examples of them running good plays, and those plays worked. But they were far and few between. Almost all the problems on the floor are a result of bad, or no coaching. Fox even admitted that there were times when he felt lost, which comes from lack of direction. From what I hear were stuck with him for another year, which means were into on the job training now. I'm not a huge fan of Cory Joseph because he's a ball pounder with little court vision, but in the last five minutes of a close game, Buddy is a liability. He's a terrible defender, careless with the ball at critical moments of the game.

Buddy has an Offrtg of 108.9 while having a Defrtg of 111.9. That's a net minus of 3.1. He has a usage rate of 26.3, which is way too high in my opinion. Whether you liked Joerger or not, Buddy was a better player under him. Joerger held him accountable and had him taking more assisted shots than unassisted. Little things win games. Turnovers at the beginning of a game are as important as those at the end. Maybe if you do all the little things right at the beginning of the game, it won't come down to a last second shot to win. If the most important thing to a player is whether he starts or not, then I have no use for him. Unless his name is Kevin Durant, or Lebron James etc. The name Buddy doesn't do it for me.

Not enough and most importantly not consistently enough. And this roster isn't likely going to be one that beats teams with players cutting through the lanes. Maybe in time, but instead I'd go watch the Rockets play. That looks a lot more like what you want to do with the type of team that is here. The way Walton ran his rotation and play style you could watch one game and be convinced this was the small ball team he was spouting off about then the next game, GONE. And that was just in the bubble. He would let the bigs get in a hole and pull the smalls out to bring it back far too often. The stats from that article paint the picture and so do the game threads. In terms of shot calls and their frequency, it wasn't all that different from Joerger. There was too much 4 out and not enough 5 either, many times early in the year that roll man was Dedmon. I'm sure there are more than a few game threads of me groaning at it occurring at the time. He should have popped on that almost every play. In the end they didn't run enough pick and pop overall and the spot numbers likely reflect that. Turning down shots was one thing but the fact is they consistently turned down shots later in the clock as well as found shooters the team wanted to take those shots. This was another reason why playing small was so important. In drive and dish they rely on a spot shooter being able to penetrate off the kick out as well.

I posted some of the plays run for Buddy in another thread, many of which were from in the bubble which was a total mismash of one game playing small and spreading vs. another where there were traditional lineups. And many plays that evolved into spread plays started too late in the clock. The whole point in running pick and roll is it's quick hitting and with the wrinkle you can draw back and reset. The Rockets anyone!

Now, with that said, here's the difference between Walton and Joerger and probably where Buddy was better used under Dave. Walton relied on half court ball a lot this year. The main difference from this year to last in pace was likely this one major area: fast break points. Last year the Kings were 1st in that area. This year? 19th. Over 8 points per game DOWN. Buddy Hield's ability to pull up in transition is what can set him apart and Joerger used that much more effectively. Where Joerger failed was not using him enough in catch and shoot situations. And I said it in another thread and posted the video clips from youtube, but of course Buddy had a higher usg%, he's the only player that can get a shot off with one screen in Waltons offense. The article describes the simplicity of Waltons offense and that was correct and many of those plays were for Buddy. The issue was the senseless movement and screens that led nowhere that took precious time off the clock before they finally ran pick and roll or used the post option or extended horns for Buddy/Bogdan.

I'll post this again for another reason this time. Here's an example of a game that started off running more motion and more 4 out pick and roll with a non shooting big at times. Notice the plays that start occurring more and more as the game gets going. 5 out. But only a few of them are true 5 out. 5 out means you station. They have Fox running through the paint, not to mention playing off the ball which is a tired issue at this point. Again, even the 5 out sets were fishy non-committal and used the wrong personnel frequently.

And sometimes the Kings poorest spacing was on post ups. Walton's tendency to run screen motion offense on the weakside created this type of scenario:



Gee, have fun Marvin.

And I'll now post this. Here's a highlight clip of the Rockets/Thunder game. This is true 5 out basketball most of the time where shooters are spotted up ready to catch and shoot. With the Kings this should be Fox creating, Buddy draining.

As for individual ratings, bleh. Walton changed his lineups at a whim, players hit the skids one game, back the next. The 5 man numbers still tell a more clear story. The team is better small and with Buddy in the lineup more often than not. Teams win, not individuals.

 

[Groovygreg]

Great article. Walton’s schemes are mostly suspect.

 

[ESP47]

It's obvious to everyone other than Walton that Hield should be used like Klay Thompson.

Joerger had the same problem Walton does, just with WCS. He was a slightly capable passer so Joerger sacrificed a big percentage of the offense to allow WCS to pass from the high post. He went from averaging about 2 assists to 3 assists per36.

Walton does the same with Buddy. He runs way more offensive plays as the lead ball handler than he should be and that's allowed him to average .7 more assists than he did the previous year. Has the ball in his hands more yet he scores less points and is less efficient. All for .7 more assists per game.

 

[bajaden]

Not enough and most importantly not consistently enough. And this roster isn't likely going to be one that beats teams with players cutting through the lanes. Maybe in time, but instead I'd go watch the Rockets play. That looks a lot more like what you want to do with the type of team that is here. The way Walton ran his rotation and play style you could watch one game and be convinced this was the small ball team he was spouting off about then the next game, GONE. And that was just in the bubble. He would let the bigs get in a hole and pull the smalls out to bring it back far too often. The stats from that article paint the picture and so do the game threads. In terms of shot calls and their frequency, it wasn't all that different from Joerger. There was too much 4 out and not enough 5 either, many times early in the year that roll man was Dedmon. I'm sure there are more than a few game threads of me groaning at it occurring at the time. He should have popped on that almost every play. In the end they didn't run enough pick and pop overall and the spot numbers likely reflect that. Turning down shots was one thing but the fact is they consistently turned down shots later in the clock as well as found shooters the team wanted to take those shots. This was another reason why playing small was so important. In drive and dish they rely on a spot shooter being able to penetrate off the kick out as well.

I posted some of the plays run for Buddy in another thread, many of which were from in the bubble which was a total mismash of one game playing small and spreading vs. another where there were traditional lineups. And many plays that evolved into spread plays started too late in the clock. The whole point in running pick and roll is it's quick hitting and with the wrinkle you can draw back and reset. The Rockets anyone!

Now, with that said, here's the difference between Walton and Joerger and probably where Buddy was better used under Dave. Walton relied on half court ball a lot this year. The main difference from this year to last in pace was likely this one major area: fast break points. Last year the Kings were 1st in that area. This year? 19th. Over 8 points per game DOWN. Buddy Hield's ability to pull up in transition is what can set him apart and Joerger used that much more effectively. Where Joerger failed was not using him enough in catch and shoot situations. And I said it in another thread and posted the video clips from youtube, but of course Buddy had a higher usg%, he's the only player that can get a shot off with one screen in Waltons offense. The article describes the simplicity of Waltons offense and that was correct and many of those plays were for Buddy. The issue was the senseless movement and screens that led nowhere that took precious time off the clock before they finally ran pick and roll or used the post option or extended horns for Buddy/Bogdan.

I'll post this again for another reason this time. Here's an example of a game that started off running more motion and more 4 out pick and roll with a non shooting big at times. Notice the plays that start occurring more and more as the game gets going. 5 out. But only a few of them are true 5 out. 5 out means you station. They have Fox running through the paint, not to mention playing off the ball which is a tired issue at this point. Again, even the 5 out sets were fishy non-committal and used the wrong personnel frequently.

And sometimes the Kings poorest spacing was on post ups. Walton's tendency to run screen motion offense on the weakside created this type of scenario:

View attachment 10170

Gee, have fun Marvin.

And I'll now post this. Here's a highlight clip of the Rockets/Thunder game. This is true 5 out basketball most of the time where shooters are spotted up ready to catch and shoot. With the Kings this should be Fox creating, Buddy draining.

As for individual ratings, bleh. Walton changed his lineups at a whim, players hit the skids one game, back the next. The 5 man numbers still tell a more clear story. The team is better small and with Buddy in the lineup more often than not. Teams win, not individuals.

I think we can agree on one thing, and that's the team wasn't well coached. How many five outs were used or not used isn't important. How they were used is. Up front, I'm not a big fan of isolation basketball. I think you have to have players capable of going one on one at times when you need a basket. But in general, I abhor it. Contrary to what some people may think, Buddy isn't a great isolation player. He can get hot at times and hit some ridiculous shots out of isolation, but in general he's much better when being assisted.

Under Joerger there was much less of Buddy in iso, and more of Buddy in catch and shoots or coming off double screens. I'm all about playing players to their strengths, and If I were the coach, I'd pull Buddy out of the game every time he went one on one, regardless of the result. All that aside, my main complaint with Buddy is his defense, or lack there of. Go look up points in the paint for and against with Buddy. It's horribly lopsided in favor of the opposition. Does anyone remember in the last game when more than once, a Laker waltzed down the lane for an easy layup totally unguarded? Yep, you guessed it, that was Buddy's man. Happens every game, over and over again.

Buddy is actually a fairly good on the ball defender at times, but his off the ball defense in non-existent. No one is going to convince me that having a player with a -4 offense/defense rating is going to help you win more games than you lose. There's simply no logic in that. You show me a basketball team that allows more points than they score over the length of the season, and I'll show you a loser.

 

[SacTownKid]

I think we can agree on one thing, and that's the team wasn't well coached. How many five outs were used or not used isn't important. How they were used is. Up front, I'm not a big fan of isolation basketball. I think you have to have players capable of going one on one at times when you need a basket. But in general, I abhor it. Contrary to what some people may think, Buddy isn't a great isolation player. He can get hot at times and hit some ridiculous shots out of isolation, but in general he's much better when being assisted.

Under Joerger there was much less of Buddy in iso, and more of Buddy in catch and shoots or coming off double screens. I'm all about playing players to their strengths, and If I were the coach, I'd pull Buddy out of the game every time he went one on one, regardless of the result. All that aside, my main complaint with Buddy is his defense, or lack there of. Go look up points in the paint for and against with Buddy. It's horribly lopsided in favor of the opposition. Does anyone remember in the last game when more than once, a Laker waltzed down the lane for an easy layup totally unguarded? Yep, you guessed it, that was Buddy's man. Happens every game, over and over again.

Buddy is actually a fairly good on the ball defender at times, but his off the ball defense in non-existent. No one is going to convince me that having a player with a -4 offense/defense rating is going to help you win more games than you lose. There's simply no logic in that. You show me a basketball team that allows more points than they score over the length of the season, and I'll show you a loser.

I don't look at it as much as that, much more so spacing basketball. I don't think Fox being a full on James Harden or Buddy for that matter is wise. However, allowing Fox to create shots for himself and others by collapsing defenses is the most obvious way to turn him into the player they envision.

I agree 100% about Buddy. I do think if given the chance he could easily emulate some of what he did in college but that doesn't really help Fox at all. Making it work means taking the obvious route for sure. You have an elite draw and kick player playing next to a guy that was like top 3 or something in catch and shoot at one point while taking waaay less shots than his competition in those scenarios, BTW, Buddy agrees with you:

https://clutchpoints.com/kings-news...-about-lack-of-catch-and-shoot-opportunities/

I'm pretty sure Buddy didn't ask his coach to fix that by playing him at backup PG either, lol. Also as some of those vids of Buddy's actions in the bubble illustrate too many shots are off of a screen and movement. Those are tough shots. They need to get him spotted up more. Fox or Joseph off the ball means teams will double and pressure Buddy and from what I saw he was the only player on the team defenses respected enough to do so consistently. You could see the defense shift a few feet towards Buddy when he was the offensive priority. Walton fell right into the other teams clutches doing what he did. 16th in spot shots is an improvement but with the way the team was designed this team has no excuse not to be top 3 in that area when it comes to attempts. They didn't use the clock and spacing effectively and as you said, got too unselfish with the ball while a great shooter slides it on over to a worse one when they were wide open. That's where your coach needs to design plays for his top scorers. Walton didn't do that in LA, didn't do it here either. He relied on those guys to get the shots off but it's that 5-7 seconds wasted at the start of every play just setting up the floor is what killed it.

It's hard to say what is wrong defensively because Waltons strategy is so flawed and help oriented. He relies on small guards to help all the way in the paint and it wasn't just Buddy getting caught with his eyes stuck to the ball. Relying on help and run outs when your idea of small ball is 2 PG's and a SG playing SF, well, I don't know what to say about that. In the end, plenty of the Kings better defensive net rating 5 man units feature Buddy in them. He's not a great defender on help for sure, but again, I can't totally blame anyone because the help scheme was trash to begin with. For all time I think I'll hear DC thinking out loud then pleading through the headset that the next play is where the Kings will finally pressure the ball, haha.

 

[King Baller]

I'm all for replacing Walton. I don't like watching the Kings play as much with Walton as coach. Because the style his teams play is not team basketball IMO.

Hard nosed defense and the passing game is what I enjoy, when players set up their team mates. The KIngs have a couple of guys who are good at this. Bogi and Giles certainly are good assist men as are others. They could use a couple more good defenders.

Here is me hoping Walton is just a place holder until the new GM is in place.