is rahim a dissapointment?

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Did I say that it was solely Abdur-Rahim, or did I say that it was possible that it was solely Abdur-Rahim?

You're the one who refuses to accept the possibility that it's really just him, not the other way around; when a guy plays for four different teams, and they ALL lose, I'm not willing to throw out the possibility that he's got something to do with them losing. In fact, I'm not willing to throw out the possibility that he's got a lot to do with it.

 

[Kings241]

Did I say that it was solely Abdur-Rahim, or did I say that it was possible that it was solely Abdur-Rahim?

You're the one who refuses to accept the possibility that it's really just him, not the other way around; when a guy plays for four different teams, and they ALL lose, I'm not willing to throw out the possibility that he's got something to do with them losing. In fact, I'm not willing to throw out the possibility that he's got a lot to do with it.

Lets see how much "better" our offense and record will improve with KT startings. I'm sure your just excited to see us turn to a .500 team with KT starting right...

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Lets see how much "better" our offense and record will improve with KT startings. I'm sure your just excited to see us turn to a .500 team with KT starting right...

right back at you.

We were 10-17 with Abdur-Rahim starting; it's not like we could do much worse...

 

[Bricklayer]

Lets see how much "better" our offense and record will improve with KT startings. I'm sure your just excited to see us turn to a .500 team with KT starting right...

Throwing KT out there is another straw man in any debate of this nature. Because we might have an even worse lottery PF as an option does not in any way negate the possibility that our normal starter is one too.

I go back to my theory that Reef does not make you lose like some sort of disease you catch, but that he does little to make you win and his +/- over an average NBA PF might well be negligible despite the skills. And if his potential, whatever it might be, can only be unlocked if he has Steve Nash for a PG and Ben Wallace for a C, then he's worth even less to the 95% of teams out there without that level of personnel. Lot of very average players can look good playing alongside studs like that. And a big key to being more than average, to being a star, is that you make OTHERS better, not that you sit around waiting for them to make you better.

 

[Kings241]

Throwing KT out there is another straw man in any debate of this nature. Because we might have an even worse lottery PF as an option does not in any way negate the possibility that our normal starter is one too.

I go back to my theory that Reef does not make you lose like some sort of disease you catch, but that he does little to make you win and his +/- over an average NBA PF might well be negligible despite the skills. And if his potential, whatever it might be, can only be unlocked if he has Steve Nash for a PG and Ben Wallace for a C, then he's worth even le3ss tot eh 95% of teams out there without that level of personnel. Lot of very average players can look good playing alongside studs like that. And a big key to being more than average, to being a star, is that you make OTHERS better, not that you sit around waiting for them to make you better.

Well he trys to make other people better by going into the post and kicking it to the open man whether it's Bibby or Peja but they just can't knock down the shots.

 

[BigWaxer]

I have been reading this thread and it’s pretty entertaining. Good points on both sides and as usual I fall in the middle of the Reef debate.

I don't figure him to be an impact player. We suck with him and we suck without him. He is #1 in FG% as well he is also is up there with technical fouls and so far has shown to be pretty poor on the boards. However he seems to be an average+ individual defender.

I would make the case that the 2 rebounds a game "COULD" be the points that we lose by. Considering PF is 99.6 and PA is 100.2. Of course thinking logically I could point to each of our players and point out that if they improved an aspect of there game or if our bench was more productive we would/could also make up that point difference. The blame of our problems does not lie solely on Reef and I don’t think he is the reason for our problems. It’s a combination of things and I think most of us see that.

As far as Reef, his contract is small, he does have talent and I would think he would be a pretty easy piece to move. Ideally he would be packaged with one of the 3 Philly contracts to possibly help improve in certain areas. Remember its just IMO… I have nothing against Reef; I am just looking for the best possible scenarios to improve. The team as I see it now is not going anywhere even when everyone is healthy. I don’t think there is any easy fix and I am hoping that Petrie has a master plan that we are unaware of.

 

[playmaker0017]

I go back to my theory that Reef does not make you lose like some sort of disease you catch, but that he does little to make you win and his +/- over an average NBA PF might well be negligible despite the skills.

That's not true.

Let's compare among the tops in the league:

PLAYER: EFFECTIVENESS +/- (OPPONENTS EFFECTIVENESS) <RANK ON D>
Brand: 14.4 (15.8) <4>
Garnett: 10.8 (17.1) <5>
Duncan: 9.5 (15.8) <4>
Reef: 9.4 (13.6) <1>
J. ONeal: 7.7 (17.6) <6>
Bosh: 4.2 (20.7) <9>
Howard: 4.1 (14.9) <3>
Randolph: 2.8 (17.7) <7>
Martin: 2.2 (14.1) <2>
Webber: -1.5 (18.2) <8>

Granted, this does not take into consideration the effect they have of stopping PG penetration and just takes the player as a solitary unit of effectiveness in their role.

Based on Reef's offensive effectiveness so far this season, it is a safe assumption that he can extend that 9.4 effectiveness edge with more than 11 touches on offense and grabbing a few more rebounds.

And if his potential, whatever it might be, can only be unlocked if he has Steve Nash for a PG and Ben Wallace for a C, then he's worth even less to the 95% of teams out there without that level of personnel.

No one said Ben Wallace or Steve Nash, except you.

I said a solid defender at each position. Damon Stoudamire, Mike Bibby, Jason Terry are all subpar defenders at PG.

For the most part, Theo Ratliff is a weak defender, but stuffs up the lane. But, Massenberg, Harrington, one-legged Otis Thorpe and whatever 6'9"- center Reef has played with has been pretty subpar.

And a big key to being more than average, to being a star, is that you make OTHERS better, not that you sit around waiting for them to make you better.

What's funny is that everyone says this - but there are only 2-4 players in this league that truly do it.

There are players that can absolutely DOMINATE a game and DESTROY a team through sheer effort - but there are only a small handful of players that actually make everyone better. It's a misnomer.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Not necessarily. There were a number of players on this team that made their teammates better. They (Webb, Divac, Christie) just happen to be all gone now.

 

[playmaker0017]

Not necessarily. There were a number of players on this team that made their teammates better. They (Webb, Divac, Christie) just happen to be all gone now.

Did they make players "better" or did they fit the system?

I believe they fit the system more than they "made players better".

The pieces fit. But, they weren't making people significantly better. They were all adding their coin to the pot and the pot got full.

To make players better you have to be able to dominate the ball and cause entire teams to collapse on you. For the most part - the only players that can do this with any regularity are PGs and SGs.

PFs, SFs, Cs are able to dominate a game and work great in a system, but they typically aren't good enough putting the ball on the ground to TRULY make an impact that makes people better.

Now, being able to hit a pass doesn't "make people better" ... it means you hit a pass. Miller and Vlade both did that. They hit the open cutter, but it's THROUGH the offense and because of the offense. It's not like they are out there breaking a defense down and creating opportunities.

 

[Padrino]

Did they make players "better" or did they fit the system?

I believe they fit the system more than they "made players better".

The pieces fit. But, they weren't making people significantly better. They were all adding their coin to the pot and the pot got full.

To make players better you have to be able to dominate the ball and cause entire teams to collapse on you. For the most part - the only players that can do this with any regularity are PGs and SGs.

PFs, SFs, Cs are able to dominate a game and work great in a system, but they typically aren't good enough putting the ball on the ground to TRULY make an impact that makes people better.

Now, being able to hit a pass doesn't "make people better" ... it means you hit a pass. Miller and Vlade both did that. They hit the open cutter, but it's THROUGH the offense and because of the offense. It's not like they are out there breaking a defense down and creating opportunities.

see, i think you're wrong here. you don't have to be a top 5 player in the nba to make your teammates better. it certainly helps. webber's talent, skillset, and ability to take over a game single handedly was a wonderful thing to watch, but that was not the reason he made his teammates better. his desire, intensity, passion, fire, whatever you wanna call it...that was what made the team better. if we were to juxtapose a webber game and a rahim game in which both players put up similarly stat-filled numbers, i guarantee that it would be webber that had the greater impact.

it is not simply a matter of being a 20-10 player. 20-10 means nothing if it goes up on the board unnoticed. webber knew how to make a statement, put a stamp on a pass or a dunk or a board. his "swagger" which many of us hold dear in our hearts was something that carried the team and made them better. did you notice how flat the kings looked last night, despite miller's 36? miller doesn't make his teammates better. you're right about how the ability to make a perfect pass doesn't necessarily constitute "making people better." miller's 36 were great, but they were quiet and did little to change the pace or flow of the game. his defense doesn't change games, and his offense doesn't change games.

a guy like vlade divac, on the other hand, makes his teammates better. he was old, slow, could hardly defend to save his life, labored with every leap, smoked more than a pack a day, but still managed to make his teammates better with his lockerroon presence, his passion, his friendship, and his desire to win. that's the mark of a leader and a player who can make his teammates better without the superstar level talent.

 

[Kings241]

see, i think you're wrong here. you don't have to be a top 5 player in the nba to make your teammates better. it certainly helps. webber's talent, skillset, and ability to take over a game single handedly was a wonderful thing to watch, but that was not the reason he made his teammates better. his desire, intensity, passion, fire, whatever you wanna call it...that was what made the team better. if we were to juxtapose a webber game and a rahim game in which both players put up similarly stat-filled numbers, i guarantee that it would be webber that had the greater impact.

it is not simply a matter of being a 20-10 player. 20-10 means nothing if it goes up on the board unnoticed. webber knew how to make a statement, put a stamp on a pass or a dunk or a board. his "swagger" which many of us hold dear in our hearts was something that carried the team and made them better. did you notice how flat the kings looked last night, despite miller's 36? miller doesn't make his teammates better. you're right about how the ability to make a perfect pass doesn't necessarily constitute "making people better." miller's 36 were great, but they were quiet and did little to change the pace or flow of the game. his defense doesn't change games, and his offense doesn't change games.

a guy like vlade divac, on the other hand, makes his teammates better. he was old, slow, could hardly defend to save his life, labored with every leap, smoked more than a pack a day, but still managed to make his teammates better with his lockerroon presence, his passion, his friendship, and his desire to win. that's the mark of a leader and a player who can make his teammates better without the superstar level talent.

Isn't being a leader Bibby's job right now? Shareef was never brought here to be a leader. He was brought here to do exactly what he has done this season. Bring scoring in the post and effeciency.

 

[Padrino]

Isn't being a leader Bibby's job right now? Shareef was never brought here to be a leader. He was brought here to do exactly what he has done this season. Bring scoring in the post and effeciency.

i didn't say reef was supposed to be the leader. i was just saying he doesn't have the qualities of a leader or a game changer, so he shouldn't be expected to step up into that role, especially in his first year here. bibby doesn't have all the leadership qualities we need, either. oddly enough, it is bonzi wells that has stepped up and filled--somewhat--the leadership role. i would hope that bibby might feel challenged to step up because of the newcomer's positive attitude, but we havent seen it yet...

 

[Bricklayer]

Did they make players "better" or did they fit the system?

And therein I think lies the blindspot for Reef jockers, and maybe even the man himself (although I do not know him and so will not be so presumptuous as to attribute his fans opinions to him).

Just a general lack of recognition of how significant interaction is on the basketball court. How the great players for the lack of a better word "glow" while they are out there and elevate everybody around them. Determine the whole tone and tenor of teams. See the entire floor. Understand and think the game, the entire game, not just their own. Cover up weaknesses, exploit strengths, inspire, make people believe in themselves, eliminate confusion etc. Takes enormous pressure off of everybody else, and gives people direction and focus.

Have Reef's teams EVER had direction and focus? No. And its "no" because they haven't had that tonesetter making everybody better and bringing it all together. Even back in the days when Reef used to have a first rate game, he played in his own little box marked "open when in need of a post game". Everyone else though was left fending for themselves. Reef will get his numbers. Always has. Always will. But he doesn't lead, inspire, adapt, make others better, see the game etc. etc. He sees spin move left and spin move right. I've mentioned repeatedly, Peja with a post game. Lost in his own little world as a finisher. But may not have even tried to find that extra sparkle in this entire millenium.

And I fear his biggest fans either are his biggest fans because they do not recognize the difference between him and a player that matters, or perhaps even REFUSE to recognize the difference so that they can continue to jock their favorite scorer. Trying to deny that there are anyh baskeball players who make others better is...trying to make the NBA into a computer basketball game. A fantasy league where you add up numbers to see who has the best team (and the only place ours would be any good BTW).

Guys make people better. Vlade made people better. Webb made people better. Even Doug made people better on defense. So do great and not so great players across the league, from passers like Nash, to defensive demons like Wallace or Kirlenko, 350lb post behemoths like Shaq to floppy energizers like Manu. They sparkle far beyond their individual games because everybody else plays off of them and becomes energized by their spirit. Nobody plays off of Reef. Nobody gets better with him on the floor. If they were to absorb his spirit it would be like taking a valium before the game.

And that's a huge and virtually uncrossable gulf between a guy who plays HIS game, and a guy who plays THE game.

 

[Goo]

Newbie here, how is everyone doing?

Back to topic.

We have 2 groups of people here, one lead by Brick and the other lead by Play. Why do we have to go over the same argument over and over and over again? Don't everyone get sick about it?

Reef is a good player, A- on O/C+ on D. He come to Sac town at a bargain price to win because he has never been to PO for what ever reason(s).

I think we can all agree that he is better than KT and I don't see anything wrong start Reef ahead of KT.

Mike/cat/Peja/KT/Miller more of less = Mike/Well/Peja/Reef/Miller
and the starting 5 can usually hold their own again others starting 5 even Mike/Peja is shooting in 30ish % alot of time. Why blame Reef? King have more problems than Reef. Reef can't carry a team I think even himself will admit that, he sign with King because he want to contribute to the team and I think he did a dam good job.

If our GM think Reef is the reason we have .400 record how about trading him for Walker, Kwame or Stromile? You want a young shoot blocker(not Walker) that can jump right? I think King should have no problem getting those player in exchange for Reef.

King is facing serious problem(s), but Reef's performance is not at the top of the list.

 

[piksi]

Why do we have to go over the same argument over and over and over again? Don't everyone get sick about it?

because we are 12-18 and need distractions

 

[Kings241]

yea this topic is a good debate.

 

[nbrans]

And therein I think lies the blindspot for Reef jockers, and maybe even the man himself (although I do not know him and so will not be so presumptuous as to attribute his fans opinions to him).

Just a general lack of recognition of how significant interaction is on the basketball court. How the great players for the lack of a better word "glow" while they are out there and elevate everybody around them. Determine the whole tone and tenor of teams. See the entire floor. Understand and think the game, the entire game, not just their own. Cover up weaknesses, exploit strengths, inspire, make people believe in themselves, eliminate confusion etc. Takes enormous pressure off of everybody else, and gives people direction and focus.

Have Reef's teams EVER had direction and focus? No. And its "no" because they haven't had that tonesetter making everybody better and bringing it all together. Even back in the days when Reef used to have a first rate game, he played in his own little box marked "open when in need of a post game". Everyone else though was left fending for themselves. Reef will get his numbers. Always has. Always will. But he doesn't lead, inspire, adapt, make others better, see the game etc. etc. He sees spin move left and spin move right. I've mentioned repeatedly, Peja with a post game. Lost in his own little world as a finisher. But may not have even tried to find that extra sparkle in this entire millenium.

And I fear his biggest fans either are his biggest fans because they do not recognize the difference between him and a player that matters, or perhaps even REFUSE to recognize the difference so that they can continue to jock their favorite scorer. Trying to deny that there are anyh baskeball players who make others better is...trying to make the NBA into a computer basketball game. A fantasy league where you add up numbers to see who has the best team (and the only place ours would be any good BTW).

Guys make people better. Vlade made people better. Webb made people better. Even Doug made people better on defense. So do great and not so great players across the league, from passers like Nash, to defensive demons like Wallace or Kirlenko, 350lb post behemoths like Shaq to floppy energizers like Manu. They sparkle far beyond their individual games because everybody else plays off of them and becomes energized by their spirit. Nobody plays off of Reef. Nobody gets better with him on the floor. If they were to absorb his spirit it would be like taking a valium before the game.

And that's a huge and virtually uncrossable gulf between a guy who plays HIS game, and a guy who plays THE game.

This would be a great post if Shareef were given the max, hailed as a franchise player and the heir to Chris Webber and had his number preemptorily retired by the franchise. It would be the perfect diagnosis. But I don't think even the biggest Reef homers on this board think Reef is any sort of a savior or a franchise cornerstone.

Shareef was brought to the Kings to be the fourth best player, and as a fourth best player he's been pretty darn good. In fact, with the Core playing so poorly he's been the first or second best player. I agree with the sentiment that any team with Shareef as the first or second option isn't going anywhere, as his past teams can attest. But is it Shareef's fault that the Core has sucked so much that he's been the most consistent performer?

The guy is embracing his role as the fourth option, is playing solid defense, has some weaknesses, but otherwise serves his role as one of the biggest bargains in the league. He's scoring 16.5 ppg on a paltry 11.7 shots per game and just happens to be second in the league in field goal percentage.

Shareef is not the franchise, the alleged core is allegedly the franchise. If you want more from Reef than being the fourth best player on the team, blame the three players who are supposed to be better than him.

 

[KP]

Debate... What debate? All I see are some Noobs typing mostly irrelavent statements, and Bricklayer decimating anyone stupid enough to argue with him... as usual.

 

[Kings241]

Debate... What debate? All I see are some Noobs typing mostly irrelavent statements, and Bricklayer decimating anyone stupid enough to argue with him... as usual.

Wow I can't believe you would even use the word "noob" on this forum. Irrelavent statements huh... Read the name of this thread one more time please

 

[BMiller52]

Debate... What debate? All I see are some Noobs typing mostly irrelavent statements, and Bricklayer decimating anyone stupid enough to argue with him... as usual.

Exactly. Brick is doing a good enough job of arguing, unfortunately the people he's arguing with are people who are as stubborn as a brick wall.

 

[Kings241]

Exactly. Brick is doing a good enough job of arguing, unfortunately the people he's arguing with are people who are as stubborn as a brick wall.

Stubborn as a brick Wall eh, Well its not my fault that you just can't realize or accept the fact that Rahim hasn't been a dissapointment on our team and there are other factors that contribute to our lack of performance this season.

 

[playmaker0017]

Debate... What debate? All I see are some Noobs typing mostly irrelavent statements, and Bricklayer decimating anyone stupid enough to argue with him... as usual.

I sur ehope you aren't referring to me - because I certainly haven't had my arguement "decimated". In fact, I feel quite the opposite.

 

[Warhawk]

I think this thread has become a disappointment....

 

[ParniValjak]

Yea I really saw that last night. Mike Bibby was on fire hitting 4-20 from the field and Brad Miller, lets just say that if he did not come up with 36 points he would of been put for blame on his horrible defense and rebounding.

One game doesn't make a career. Bibby and Miller have their careers to back up my claims. SAR has sweet **** all.

 

[Kings241]

One game doesn't make a career. Bibby and Miller have their careers to back up my claims. SAR has sweet **** all.

Oh yea you mean when they had a support of Webber, a bench, and leadership right, because thats what took them to the playoffs and won them 50 + games. How come the team is sucking badly right now with Bibby and Miller on the team? Shareef doesn't make Bibby not play defense or shoot too much. Shareef doesn't stop Miller from getting rebounds or playing defense, Shareef doesn't stop Peja from hitting wide open shots, oh yea and Shareef is not the reason our bench sucks. What are you gonna say about that?

 

[BMiller52]

Oh yea you mean when they had a support of Webber, a bench, and leadership right, because thats what took them to the playoffs and won them 50 + games. How come the team is sucking badly right now with Bibby and Miller on the team? Shareef doesn't make Bibby not play defense or shoot too much. Shareef doesn't stop Miller from getting rebounds or playing defense, Shareef doesn't stop Peja from hitting wide open shots, oh yea and Shareef is not the reason our bench sucks. What are you gonna say about that?

Well to be fair, those guys don't stop Shareef from shooting the roc, those guys don't stop him from playing good defense either, those guys don't stop him from rebounding etc. The team was sucking worse with Shareef on the team too, so you're just being a blind homer of Shareef because you like him.

 

[Kings241]

Well to be fair, those guys don't stop Shareef from shooting the roc, those guys don't stop him from playing good defense either, those guys don't stop him from rebounding etc. The team was sucking worse with Shareef on the team too, so you're just being a blind homer of Shareef because you like him.

Wow Shareef doesn't play defense???? He plays more defense then Brad Miller played in his whole life. Shareef doesn't get you points? Last time I checked Shareef gets you 16.8 ppg, and thats as a 4th or 5th option, what does Brad average, 15 ppg, and you could talk about Brad's assists but sorry I would rather take a center who can block shots and clog up the lane instead of a soft Brad who takes 18 ft shots.

 

[Zyphen]

Reef has performed beyond my expectations for him so no, he's not disappointing to me. Still, that doesn't mean he's good enough to keep, nor are any other players for that matter. That includes Bonzi though he's our most valuable guy. He's still not a core guy that you'd build a team around.

 

[Greenspan 101]

You guys don't know shiz about bball if you think that KG doesn't make the players around him better. Have you even watched T-wolves games?? The man makes his team better on offense and defense.

 

[Padrino]

Oh yea you mean when they had a support of Webber, a bench, and leadership right, because thats what took them to the playoffs and won them 50 + games. How come the team is sucking badly right now with Bibby and Miller on the team? Shareef doesn't make Bibby not play defense or shoot too much. Shareef doesn't stop Miller from getting rebounds or playing defense, Shareef doesn't stop Peja from hitting wide open shots, oh yea and Shareef is not the reason our bench sucks. What are you gonna say about that?

again, you miss the point entirely. no, shareef does not stop any king from doing any of the things they should be able to do, but he doesn't make it easier for them to do those things, either. shareef is all fluff, no substance. if peja stojakovic is Charmin Ultra Soft, then shareef is Scott Super Soft (yeah...i looked that one up). the guy will give you numbers, but they are empty numbers. they go up on the scoreboard and onto the stat sheet, but they do not change games and they rarely win games. shareef doesn't hurt your team with his presence, but he doesn't make you better, either, as i've stressed over and over again. a player like that is not an asset, but its certainly no crime having him on your team, especially at his current salary. shareef can stay, and i hope he would, if something else changes. as it stands, though, he's just a softie among softies.

now, this is off the topic of the thread, but its something i've been a proponent of since the start of the season, so i'll throw it out there again. if we bring in a real PF who plays big, then shareef can utilize his smaller size and quickness at the SF, his natural position. it would also clear up another problem: the uncertain future of peja stojakovic. with rahim at the SF, it's utterly superfluous to keep a guy like peja. the most ideal situation would be to package peja and whatever else to get a more defensively oriented PF. that, to me, is not unthinkable, and it solves a couple of the kings problems. rahim at the SF is much less soft than rahim at the PF, and he would be a better rebounder for the position he would play. a defensive big in between reef and miller doesn't sound too shabby to me, especially with bonzi wells picking up some slack as well. with one move, and a small shift in reef's position, the kings would become more balanced, and infinitely closer to discovering an identity. they wouldn't necessarily be a contender, because the defensive liabilty still begins with bibby and ends with miller, so the lanes would still be open much of the time, despite any defensive PF's presence. now, i don't know how difficult it would be for GP to orchestrate a peja + whatever change from the bench for a defensive PF...but considering how he got manhandled in the webber trade, i think he's due for a little magic.