Jimmer

[The_Jamal]

Jimmer has been incredibly effective thus far in his limited minutes. His efficiency has been lights out (.710 TS, .643 eFG%) and he's scoring 0.7 points a minute. More importantly, he's playing passable defense, his ball-handling has greatly improved, and he's ran a few really nice offensive plays for others. I'm curious if we start seeing Jimmer on a regular basis for 10-12 minutes a game

 

[Kingster]

I'm confused about Smart using Jimmer at the end of the game. In the middle of the game, I get it. Not at the end. I don't understand the rationale. The only thing I can come up with is that Smart appreciates that Jimmer has some smarts and feels good about his decision making with the ball. But I don't understand not using IT. He also has smarts, can hit the outside shot, and is a better defender. Is this a spread the wealth around type of approach meant to keep everybody happy (except the better players), or was there a particular basketball reason that Jimmer played?

 

[Spike]

I don't know that I would want IT and Jimmer out on the floor at the same time, even though Smart may be itching for a 5 guard lineup. (I know you didn't advocate for that) I do think that Jimmer creates off-ball spacing in the offense better than IT just by the nature of his game, which is why I would generally want him out there getting his minutes, but as far as this game, I wouldn't read too much into it. Smart's minutes are so random anyway, Jimmer might not play again until sometime next week when he goes in for 40 minutes.

 

[tyreeeke]

Jimmer just doesnt have what it takes to get legit NBA minutes. its just not gonna happen. not trying to hate on Jimmer. but he scores 12 points and everyone comes out acting like hes the next All-Star

lol, I know what you're doing and it will cease to be replied to on the Jimmer subject.

 

[Hadlowe]

truer than ever after last night. something's got to give, only question remaining is what or who it's going to be.

A glut of talent in the backcourt is a blessing and a curse. If Tyreke was playing like a bona fide star and IT was playing at the same level he was at the end of last year, then having good backups in Thornton, Brooks, and a confident Jimmer would be great for the team. Just look at what Eric Bledsoe has been doing for the Clippers off the bench. There is no way that he is taking Chris Paul's place, but he's miles ahead of the second stringers he is up against.

As it is, the guard rotation just creates confusion. Tyreke and Thornton are playing at about equivalent levels, albeit in very different playstyles. IT is playing down from the end of the season last year, but isn't awful, and both Brooks and Jimmer have shown flashes of play that merit more minutes. So, instead of a cohesive unit, we get a bunch of guys gunning for the other guy's job. With Smart's baffling rotations, that's going to cause problems sooner than later, especially if the backcourt competition takes the ball out of Cousins hands like it has a few times already this year. Once Salmons comes back and (hopefully) starts playing like he wants minutes, things might get ugly.

Petrie needs to be shopping any one of Tyreke/Thornton/Jimmer aggressively for a competent rotation 3 or insurance big-man.

 

[tyreeeke]

A glut of talent in the backcourt is a blessing and a curse. If Tyreke was playing like a bona fide star and IT was playing at the same level he was at the end of last year, then having good backups in Thornton, Brooks, and a confident Jimmer would be great for the team. Just look at what Eric Bledsoe has been doing for the Clippers off the bench. There is no way that he is taking Chris Paul's place, but he's miles ahead of the second stringers he is up against.

As it is, the guard rotation just creates confusion. Tyreke and Thornton are playing at about equivalent levels, albeit in very different playstyles. IT is playing down from the end of the season last year, but isn't awful, and both Brooks and Jimmer have shown flashes of play that merit more minutes. So, instead of a cohesive unit, we get a bunch of guys gunning for the other guy's job. With Smart's baffling rotations, that's going to cause problems sooner than later, especially if the backcourt competition takes the ball out of Cousins hands like it has a few times already this year. Once Salmons comes back and (hopefully) starts playing like he wants minutes, things might get ugly.

Petrie needs to be shopping any one of Tyreke/Thornton/Jimmer aggressively for a competent rotation 3 or insurance big-man.

I agree, a trade seemingly has to happen. One or two of these very solid guards have to be traded, for the well being of the entire team, IMO. Eventually, when a certain player isn't getting minutes, you run the risk of his friends/teammates sabotaging the guys ahead of him and consequently, hurting team chemistry and results. However, IT and Brooks are certainly on that trade list as well.

 

[VF21]

First, your not the be all end all in judging talent, so you could be wrong. I've been wrong about a lot of players, and I watch tons of games. But I've been right more than I've been wrong. One thing I've learned, is to never say never. A player that works hard, will get better, and sometimes exceed the accomplishments of a more gifted player. The worse thing you can do is judge a player in his first year, whether he excells or disappoints. The best of the best play in the NBA, and it takes time for a player to adjust his game. Some never do, but those that put in the work usually end up being good players. Not necessarily stars, but important additions to a team.

People see what they want to see, and if a player happens to interfere with the progress of one of their favorite players, they tend to not like that player. I, like everyone else, have players I like more than others. But I don't allow myself to get married to any one player. I've been doing this for too long, and because I might stick up for a particular player, its not because he's my favorite, although he could be, but because I think someone's observation is incorrect.

In Jimmers case, I saw every game he played in his last two years of college. So I have a pretty good idea of what he's capable of. I can't predict his ceiling, but I can predict that he's going to be a productive player, and yes, its possible that he might even start for a team in the NBA. No guarantee's on that, but as I said, never say never. It took Steve Nash five years in the NBA before he became Steve Nash. Beno was a major disappointment his first three years in the NBA. Not every player is Oscar Robertson, who comes in and just blows everyone else off the court. To some it comes easy, but to others, its a learning experience.

Finally, no one is coming out and acting like Jimmer is an all star. All were doing is acknowledging his good performance tonight. He made two freethrows that had to be made to ice the game. Now you can sneer at that if you want, but it showed composure, and a little bit of icewater in his veins with the game on the line. Just give him credit when its do, or you damage your own credibility.

Thank you. I think that's what I was trying to say but you said it much better.

 

[rainmaker]

Jimmer might have had one of his better games ever in the league last night, especially when factoring in decision making and comfort on the ball. It's good for him, good for the team. It's never a bad thing to have players of value or who are increasing their value.

But there is a problem. The question isn't so much is Jimmer good enough to get minutes, the question is and should be is he good enough to take Brooks's minutes, or IT for that matter. You can't play a successful three PG rotation.

What's worse, that three PG rotation yesterday affected our SG's, and we saw MT at SF in both halves for christ sake. Reke at SF is bad enough, but tolerable in stretches to get MT more mins at SG. But moving MT to SF to get both Brooks and Jimmer minutes at the same time, in both halves? Don't like that at all.

Benching your starting PG through halftime and until the last minute of the 4th? Don't like that. Reke not getting back in sooner in favor of Jimmer/Brooks/MT at the same time? Don't like that.

The larger issue is IT and Reke, our starters, aren't playing enough as it is. Smart hasn't worked out a rotation with IT/Reke/Brooks/MT which comes cross as competent. Now we're throwing Jimmer into the mix? It will not work. It has to be Jimmer for someone,not in addition. Jimmer taking someones place in the rotation, not adding another guard to a rotation Smart already couldn't figure out.

There's also the issue that the Jimmer/Brooks/MT lineup was poor defensively(not saying just Jimmer, but that lineup) and the momentum swung in Detriots favor and they almost came back and won the game. Game should not have been that close.

These are things I have little to no confidence in Smart to work out. So even though this was great for Jimmer, I'm happy for him and it's good for the organization to see Jimmer take a step forward, the way in which it happened will not work. It has to be Jimmer jumping someone in the rotation. You cannot play all of IT/Jimmer/Brooks/Reke/MT and not suffer for it. Smart hasn't shown the ability to play four of them competently, let alone five. And going small, non defensive and moving MT to SF will not work. Det is arguably the worst team thus far in the league and that lineup almost lost the game for us. Then, you bring in a cold Reke with about 3-4 mins left and a colder IT with 1-2 mins left and expect them to close it out? They shouldn't have been on the bench in the first place.

 

[Section 101]

What's worse, that three PG rotation yesterday affected our SG's, and we saw MT at SF in both halves for christ sake. Reke at SF is bad enough, but tolerable in stretches to get MT more mins at SG. But moving MT to SF to get both Brooks and Jimmer minutes at the same time, in both halves? Don't like that at all.

It's not like he was playing against LBJ or even Prince. The match dictated that it was viable.

The larger issue is IT and Reke, our starters, aren't playing enough as it is.

Season Averages Minutes

Evans 34.8
Mt 31.8
Cuz 31.8
JT 27.8
JJ 24.6
IT 23
Chuck 22.4
Brooks 21.8
TRob 13.6

Evans is getting the correct amount of mins now. Cuz should be around the same so he should be getting a few more. The rest really depends on who's playing well that night. If JJ could hit a few shots his mins should go up.

 

[Hadlowe]

I agree, a trade seemingly has to happen. One or two of these very solid guards have to be traded, for the well being of the entire team, IMO. Eventually, when a certain player isn't getting minutes, you run the risk of his friends/teammates sabotaging the guys ahead of him and consequently, hurting team chemistry and results. However, IT and Brooks are certainly on that trade list as well.

Can't trade IT because of his high value contract. You will never get equivalent value back, and the Kings really don't want more draft picks. Now is the time to be assembling quality vets to put around Cousins and Reke.

I don't think the Kings can trade Brooks until deadline. Most of the team chemistry damage due to rotation and minute crunch will have been done by that time.

Tyreke is in a contract year and Thornton is on a good value contract. Both of those are movable assets with some draw for another team.

Fredette won't bring us much back in return at this point due to his play last year (although, I was a little surprised to see a team-leading PER of 19.8 so far this season, small sample size notwithstanding). I think Cole Aldrich would be useful on this team as an insurance and situational big-man. He was buried on the OKC bench, but put up decent defensive numbers in his limited minutes. For a cheap, low-risk shotblocker on an expiring contract, we could do worse, and I'm sure Houston wouldn't mind giving Toney Douglas' minutes away to anyone else with a pulse.

Edit-- correction, the Kings can't trade Brooks until December 15th, and Petrie will never pull the trigger on that trade unless we're getting Kevin Durant back in return.

 

[jalfa]

I agree, a trade seemingly has to happen. One or two of these very solid guards have to be traded, for the well being of the entire team, IMO. Eventually, when a certain player isn't getting minutes, you run the risk of his friends/teammates sabotaging the guys ahead of him and consequently, hurting team chemistry and results. However, IT and Brooks are certainly on that trade list as well.

agreed with everything right up to that last sentence. Isaiah is not going to get traded. sophs being traded for their own sake rarely happens and 60th picks that surprise everybody with how good they are to then get into a bit of a slump are traded even more rarely. basically, there is no team that would value Isaiah as much as the Kings do and we wouldn't get any real value at all. nevermind that Isaiah still has more of a body of work in the NBA than Jimmer has and that I'd still prefer Isaiah if it were down to that.

Brooks is a different animal altogether. mostly though because of the sheer unnecessariness of his presence, as most of this board would agree that there was never any reason to sign him and that the deal was a mistake. however, it was signed and now he's in Sacramento as probably the "prized offseason acquisition". just for that reason, trading him would look like admitting a mistake, which suppresses his trade value significantly. so, again, not getting traded.

that Tyreke and MT are unlikely to get traded should go without question and Jimmer is also more valuable developing here than he is in a trade, which means that a) Smart needs to figure out a way to play them all without any soreness (a proposition that makes me shudder) or b) someone's feelings are going to get hurt, leading us nicely back to Npliam's original and very correct assertion.

edit: meh, hadlowe beat me to it. although I don't believe Jimmer is getting traded any time soon.

 

[rainmaker]

It's not like he was playing against LBJ or even Prince. The match dictated that it was viable.



Season Averages Minutes

Evans 34.8
Mt 31.8
Cuz 31.8
JT 27.8
JJ 24.6
IT 23
Chuck 22.4
Brooks 21.8
TRob 13.6

Evans is getting the correct amount of mins now. Cuz should be around the same so he should be getting a few more. The rest really depends on who's playing well that night. If JJ could hit a few shots his mins should go up.

It was viable for short stretches against maybe the worst team in the league. us almost giving the game away to arguably the worst team showed why it's a faulty strategy. Thinking that's a way to get all five guards minutes going forward is also a faulty strategy against better teams.

As for mins, both IT and Reke need more. Especially IT. Reke's averages might say one thing, but there's been clear points in these games he should have been back the court sooner. Same with IT. Same with Cuz. Our sub patterns are a mess.

 

[bajaden]

These are things I have little to no confidence in Smart to work out. So even though this was great for Jimmer, I'm happy for him and it's good for the organization to see Jimmer take a step forward, the way in which it happened will not work. It has to be Jimmer jumping someone in the rotation. You cannot play all of IT/Jimmer/Brooks/Reke/MT and not suffer for it. Smart hasn't shown the ability to play four of them competently, let alone five. And going small, non defensive and moving MT to SF will not work. Det is arguably the worst team thus far in the league and that lineup almost lost the game for us. Then, you bring in a cold Reke with about 3-4 mins left and a colder IT with 1-2 mins left and expect them to close it out? They shouldn't have been on the bench in the first place.

To some extent, I think were talking about two separate issues here. One is the development of Jimmer, and how that can and should be a good thing. The other is how Jimmers development could cause competition at the PG/SG positions, and what is the likely outcome of that. And is that a good thing? Personally I've always thought that competition always brings out the best in everyone, or in some cases, exposes that some players might be overvalued.

However, in the end, its the person that decides how to use the available talent in a way that best suits the needs of the team that matters. And that person is Smart. He did stay with a shorter rotation last night. No Outlaw, no Cisco, and despite being somewhat undersized at times, I thought the whole unit played better as a result. Hardly perfect, but with a more overall consistent effort. Do I think its the beginning of a trend? Well I hope so as far as rotations go, but my gut tells me no. Were overloaded with players 6'6" and under, and at least half of them are are just average players, meaning they wouldn't be the centerpeice of any significant trade. In other words, we would, in all likelyhood, be trading an average player for another average player. Net gain? Zero!

I though Tyreke had a good game last night, except for, once again his inability to hit a jumpshot. And his tendecy to force his way to the basket for a charge on occasion. However, he did play good defense, and made some nice passes off penetration. He's a good player, but not a great player, and until he raises his game, if he can, to the next level, what you see is what you get, and is that enough? I'll leave that answer to you or anyone else that wants to speak on the subject. All I'm saying, is that the time has come to start judging Tyreke on what he is right now, and not what he could be if he had this or that. After 4 years in the league, which is where he'll be at years end, you have to judge the player on his current abilities and accomplishments, and not on his future potential.

This is neither an endorsement or a criticism of Tyreke. Just an honest question of whether what he brings to the team, is what this team needs, or could he be moved for a player that better fits the team? Once again, I'm not endorsing that, just asking. There's no denying that we have a problem. Too much congestion at the guard spot.

I know there are some that get concerned about their favorite player getting his minutes, or about Cuz, Tyreke, and Thornton getting their shots. But I would like to point out, that if you go back and look up most of the great championship teams of the past, yes, they all had two or three main scorers on the team, like Bird and McHale etc. But you'd also notice that just about everyone of those team had 5 to 6 players averaging in double figures for the season. Thats part of why they won. They shared the ball, and because they had so many good scorers, they were very hard to guard. When a team just takes whats there, and stops forcing things, it starts to win. And don't worry, the great scorers always get their shots.

 

[Bricklayer]

2 things:

1) I think the best way to interpret Jimmer's minutes last night is as a reaction to Cisco/Outlaw's ineffectiveness. Essentially Smart chose to go small with Jimmer and give him the minutes rather than SFs who weren't putting anything up on the board. The interesting moment is when he went with him for the stretch instead of Brooks.

2) Jimmer didn't add much yesterday. But that is not to say he didn't play well. You could also say Brooks didn't add much, and IT didn't add much. And what I mean by that is that all of those guys played fairly well in their kinda PG/mostly gunner sort of roles. All except Jimmer have proven they are able to log heavier minutes than they did. And so having three guys break up minutes that 1 guy alone with a limtied minute backup could have gotten by himself doesn't really add much. We got quite a bit out of our PGs, but if IT had played 36 min and Brooks 12, or Brooks had played 28 and Jimmer 20 or just any other combination I'm not sure it would have mattered much to our overall effectiveness. Playing them all carefully parcelled out minutes feels like a force. They are too similar, and at least when Jimmer is having a good game, too similar in the results they get for a big messy platoon to be anything but window dressing. An effective platoon is when you have one offensive guy and one defensive guy. Or one quick waterbug and one big power guy, or just whatever split where different guys bring different things and you use them as appropriate. We just have a pile of guys who can be used in almsot any combination at any point in the game and get similar results (again whne Jimmer is playing well, otherwise its just two guys).

 

[mm16]

I'm confused about Smart using Jimmer at the end of the game. In the middle of the game, I get it. Not at the end. I don't understand the rationale. The only thing I can come up with is that Smart appreciates that Jimmer has some smarts and feels good about his decision making with the ball. But I don't understand not using IT. He also has smarts, can hit the outside shot, and is a better defender. Is this a spread the wealth around type of approach meant to keep everybody happy (except the better players), or was there a particular basketball reason that Jimmer played?

I was thinking about this too. I came to the conclusion that it was probably to help spread the floor for guys like Thornton and Brooks and Jimmer himself to get open shots. Jimmer was shooting well enough to keep the defense honest.

 

[bajaden]

2 things:

1) I think the best way to interpret Jimmer's minutes last night is as a reaction to Cisco/Outlaw's ineffectiveness. Essentially Smart chose to go small with Jimmer and give him the minutes rather than SFs who weren't putting anything up on the board. The interesting moment is when he went with him for the stretch instead of Brooks.

2) Jimmer didn't add much yesterday. But that is not to say he didn't play well. You could also say Brooks didn't add much, and IT didn't add much. And what I mean by that is that all of those guys played fairly well in their kinda PG/mostly gunner sort of roles. All except Jimmer have proven they are able to log heavier minutes than they did. And so having three guys break up minutes that 1 guy alone with a limtied minute backup could have gotten by himself doesn't really add much. We got quite a bit out of our PGs, but if IT had played 36 min and Brooks 12, or Brooks had played 28 and Jimmer 20 or just any other combination I'm not sure it would have mattered much to our overall effectiveness. Playing them all carefully parcelled out minutes feels like a force. They are too similar, and at least when Jimmer is having a good game, too similar in the results they get for a big messy platoon to be anything but window dressing. An effective platoon is when you have one offensive guy and one defensive guy. Or one quick waterbug and one big power guy, or just whatever split where different guys bring different things and you use them as appropriate. We just have a pile of guys who can be used in almsot any combination at any point in the game and get similar results (again whne Jimmer is playing well, otherwise its just two guys).

I agree, I thought all three played well when they were on the floor. However, I thought both IT and Jimmer did more in trying to set up the offense, while still looking to take their shots when they were there. I thought Jimmer was particularly effective running the pick and roll with Cousins, and directing traffic from the top of the key at times. The problem, if it is a problem, is that Jimmer made a case for himself of getting more minutes. Of course one game does not a season make, and it has to be taken for what it is. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out going forward.

 

[macadocious]

I agree, I thought all three played well when they were on the floor. However, I thought both IT and Jimmer did more in trying to set up the offense, while still looking to take their shots when they were there. I thought Jimmer was particularly effective running the pick and roll with Cousins, and directing traffic from the top of the key at times. The problem, if it is a problem, is that Jimmer made a case for himself of getting more minutes. Of course one game does not a season make, and it has to be taken for what it is. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out going forward.

I was sitting right there and could not agree more. I posted this same thing in the grades thread. He directed the offense really like nobody has in a couple years. Players listened, he had couple assists and a couple hockey assists. The spacing made sense with him out there. He did not look like a deer in headlights. It is exactly what we need on this team. Isaiah can do it sometimes, I have not seen Brooks do it yet. I am encouraged by it for Jimmer and the teams sake, but it does put us in a 3 PG predicament. I don't think long term we can win playing 5 guards, 1 SF and 4 PF's/C as a rotation.

 

[Section 101]

2 things:

1) I think the best way to interpret Jimmer's minutes last night is as a reaction to Cisco/Outlaw's ineffectiveness. Essentially Smart chose to go small with Jimmer and give him the minutes rather than SFs who weren't putting anything up on the board. The interesting moment is when he went with him for the stretch instead of Brooks.

2) Jimmer didn't add much yesterday. But that is not to say he didn't play well. You could also say Brooks didn't add much, and IT didn't add much. And what I mean by that is that all of those guys played fairly well in their kinda PG/mostly gunner sort of roles. All except Jimmer have proven they are able to log heavier minutes than they did. And so having three guys break up minutes that 1 guy alone with a limtied minute backup could have gotten by himself doesn't really add much. We got quite a bit out of our PGs, but if IT had played 36 min and Brooks 12, or Brooks had played 28 and Jimmer 20 or just any other combination I'm not sure it would have mattered much to our overall effectiveness. Playing them all carefully parcelled out minutes feels like a force. They are too similar, and at least when Jimmer is having a good game, too similar in the results they get for a big messy platoon to be anything but window dressing. An effective platoon is when you have one offensive guy and one defensive guy. Or one quick waterbug and one big power guy, or just whatever split where different guys bring different things and you use them as appropriate. We just have a pile of guys who can be used in almsot any combination at any point in the game and get similar results (again whne Jimmer is playing well, otherwise its just two guys).

I disagree on it not doing much. I think the biggest thing it did was give Jimmer some confidence.

 

[tyreeeke]

Can't trade IT because of his high value contract. You will never get equivalent value back, and the Kings really don't want more draft picks. Now is the time to be assembling quality vets to put around Cousins and Reke.

I don't think the Kings can trade Brooks until deadline. Most of the team chemistry damage due to rotation and minute crunch will have been done by that time.

Tyreke is in a contract year and Thornton is on a good value contract. Both of those are movable assets with some draw for another team.

Fredette won't bring us much back in return at this point due to his play last year (although, I was a little surprised to see a team-leading PER of 19.8 so far this season, small sample size notwithstanding). I think Cole Aldrich would be useful on this team as an insurance and situational big-man. He was buried on the OKC bench, but put up decent defensive numbers in his limited minutes. For a cheap, low-risk shotblocker on an expiring contract, we could do worse, and I'm sure Houston wouldn't mind giving Toney Douglas' minutes away to anyone else with a pulse.

Edit-- correction, the Kings can't trade Brooks until December 15th, and Petrie will never pull the trigger on that trade unless we're getting Kevin Durant back in return.

Addition by subtraction. The trade value IT has is irrelevant, IMO. I'm not saying trade IT, i'm just saying the trading of one or two of these guards (I wouldn't trade Thornton) would be an addition by subtraction.

 

[treach1976]

I was thinking about this too. I came to the conclusion that it was probably to help spread the floor for guys like Thornton and Brooks and Jimmer himself to get open shots. Jimmer was shooting well enough to keep the defense honest.

I feel like the odd PG substitutions is mostly about Smart's perspective on his three mini Guards. He clearly has the most confidence in either Thomas (his starter) or Brooks (his finisher), but it's not to the level to where he is unwilling to make it a competition, even in Game Critical situations. Smart probably sees these three as relatively close in terms of overall effectiveness with Jimmer slightly below. The concept of going with your starters to close out a game doesn't apply in this situation. Last night, he put in IT at about the 3 minute mark (end of game), but then yanked him as soon as Knight busted the 3 over him. Jimmer was back in. I don't think he considers Jimmer better than IT at this point, but it felt like a message to IT that just because you are the starter, doesn't mean you can get comfortable. (Alternative and probably more plausible explanation may be that he wanted to let Jimmer finish the game, but wanted IT to defend in a critical situation).

 

[SacTownKid]

So Jimmer as a shooting PG vs. a pick and roll PG makes a difference in how both Jimmer looks and plays? No way, who would have thought!

 

[Kingster]

To some extent, I think were talking about two separate issues here. One is the development of Jimmer, and how that can and should be a good thing. The other is how Jimmers development could cause competition at the PG/SG positions, and what is the likely outcome of that. And is that a good thing? Personally I've always thought that competition always brings out the best in everyone, or in some cases, exposes that some players might be overvalued.

However, in the end, its the person that decides how to use the available talent in a way that best suits the needs of the team that matters. And that person is Smart. He did stay with a shorter rotation last night. No Outlaw, no Cisco, and despite being somewhat undersized at times, I thought the whole unit played better as a result. Hardly perfect, but with a more overall consistent effort. Do I think its the beginning of a trend? Well I hope so as far as rotations go, but my gut tells me no. Were overloaded with players 6'6" and under, and at least half of them are are just average players, meaning they wouldn't be the centerpeice of any significant trade. In other words, we would, in all likelyhood, be trading an average player for another average player. Net gain? Zero!

I though Tyreke had a good game last night, except for, once again his inability to hit a jumpshot. And his tendecy to force his way to the basket for a charge on occasion. However, he did play good defense, and made some nice passes off penetration. He's a good player, but not a great player, and until he raises his game, if he can, to the next level, what you see is what you get, and is that enough? I'll leave that answer to you or anyone else that wants to speak on the subject. All I'm saying, is that the time has come to start judging Tyreke on what he is right now, and not what he could be if he had this or that. After 4 years in the league, which is where he'll be at years end, you have to judge the player on his current abilities and accomplishments, and not on his future potential.

This is neither an endorsement or a criticism of Tyreke. Just an honest question of whether what he brings to the team, is what this team needs, or could he be moved for a player that better fits the team? Once again, I'm not endorsing that, just asking. There's no denying that we have a problem. Too much congestion at the guard spot.

I know there are some that get concerned about their favorite player getting his minutes, or about Cuz, Tyreke, and Thornton getting their shots. But I would like to point out, that if you go back and look up most of the great championship teams of the past, yes, they all had two or three main scorers on the team, like Bird and McHale etc. But you'd also notice that just about everyone of those team had 5 to 6 players averaging in double figures for the season. Thats part of why they won. They shared the ball, and because they had so many good scorers, they were very hard to guard. When a team just takes whats there, and stops forcing things, it starts to win. And don't worry, the great scorers always get their shots.

Ahh, come on. You can talk on the subject. Just stick your neck out there. How long is your neck, anyway?

 

[Kingster]

I was thinking about this too. I came to the conclusion that it was probably to help spread the floor for guys like Thornton and Brooks and Jimmer himself to get open shots. Jimmer was shooting well enough to keep the defense honest.

The thing is, IT has been torching it from the outside. So it's not like he's taking a lousy outside shooter to put in a very good one. Those dots don't seem to connect.

 

[Kingster]

2 things:

1) I think the best way to interpret Jimmer's minutes last night is as a reaction to Cisco/Outlaw's ineffectiveness. Essentially Smart chose to go small with Jimmer and give him the minutes rather than SFs who weren't putting anything up on the board. The interesting moment is when he went with him for the stretch instead of Brooks.

2) Jimmer didn't add much yesterday. But that is not to say he didn't play well. You could also say Brooks didn't add much, and IT didn't add much. And what I mean by that is that all of those guys played fairly well in their kinda PG/mostly gunner sort of roles. All except Jimmer have proven they are able to log heavier minutes than they did. And so having three guys break up minutes that 1 guy alone with a limtied minute backup could have gotten by himself doesn't really add much. We got quite a bit out of our PGs, but if IT had played 36 min and Brooks 12, or Brooks had played 28 and Jimmer 20 or just any other combination I'm not sure it would have mattered much to our overall effectiveness. Playing them all carefully parcelled out minutes feels like a force. They are too similar, and at least when Jimmer is having a good game, too similar in the results they get for a big messy platoon to be anything but window dressing. An effective platoon is when you have one offensive guy and one defensive guy. Or one quick waterbug and one big power guy, or just whatever split where different guys bring different things and you use them as appropriate. We just have a pile of guys who can be used in almsot any combination at any point in the game and get similar results (again whne Jimmer is playing well, otherwise its just two guys).

Yes, but it still doesn't answer the question: Why Jimmer instead of IT or Brooks at the end of the 4th quarter? The only thing that I can come up with is that Smart wants to continue to develop Jimmer and he feels confident enough in his judgement to put him in there with the game on the line. Still, if he wants to develop Jimmer with the game on the line, it would seem that he should also want to develop IT with the game on the line; and that's a zero sum game, unless he goes with a micro backcourt and plays the two of them at the same time. I still don't get it.

 

[Padrino]

Yes, but it still doesn't answer the question: Why Jimmer instead of IT or Brooks at the end of the 4th quarter? The only thing that I can come up with is that Smart wants to continue to develop Jimmer and he feels confident enough in his judgement to put him in there with the game on the line. Still, if he wants to develop Jimmer with the game on the line, it would seem that he should also want to develop IT with the game on the line; and that's a zero sum game, unless he goes with a micro backcourt and plays the two of them at the same time. I still don't get it.

neither do i. honestly, i find no method to keith smart's madness. most of the time, it feels to me like he's just searching. for example, he has rarely shown acumen enough to play to the matchups, to adjust his game plan in a way that effectively exploits an advantage the kings may have over an opponent, whether it be size, speed, strength, post-play, etc. some blame can be laid at the feet of his players, who don't appear to excel in executing the game plan. but smart's lottery ball approach to lineups are evidence enough that much of the blame must be laid at his own feet. he consistently sabotages his own players' success, and i'd still be leading the "fire smart" chants if it weren't for the kings inconsistent but vastly improved defensive effort so far this season. i don't know what smart and his staff dumped into the gatorade, but i never thought i'd see these particular kings play defense with even half the intensity they've displayed through five games. that alone should be commended, particularly if they can keep it up...

 

[Bricklayer]

Yes, but it still doesn't answer the question: Why Jimmer instead of IT or Brooks at the end of the 4th quarter? The only thing that I can come up with is that Smart wants to continue to develop Jimmer and he feels confident enough in his judgement to put him in there with the game on the line. Still, if he wants to develop Jimmer with the game on the line, it would seem that he should also want to develop IT with the game on the line; and that's a zero sum game, unless he goes with a micro backcourt and plays the two of them at the same time. I still don't get it.

No, I have no real explanation for that randomness either, and it could have cost us a game we simply needed to win. My best/only guess is that all the wild charges and shots from Brooks are actually the result of him breaking/not understanding/not running the offense. And because of that Thornton was being frozen out, and late in the game we wanted him to be featured not one of our chucking PGs. But when I call that a "guess" I actually mean something closer to possibly baseless speculation.

 

[Kingster]

neither do i. honestly, i find no method to keith smart's madness. most of the time, it feels to me like he's just searching. for example, he has rarely shown acumen enough to play to the matchups, to adjust his game plan in a way that effectively exploits an advantage the kings may have over an opponent, whether it be size, speed, strength, post-play, etc. some blame can be laid at the feet of his players, who don't appear to excel in executing the game plan. but smart's lottery ball approach to lineups are evidence enough that much of the blame must be laid at his own feet. he consistently sabotages his own players' success, and i'd still be leading the "fire smart" chants if it weren't for the kings inconsistent but vastly improved defensive effort so far this season. i don't know what smart and his staff dumped into the gatorade, but i never thought i'd see these particular kings play defense with even half the intensity they've displayed through five games. that alone should be commended, particularly if they can keep it up...

I have very similar sentiments. I've been very happy with the improved defense, and am willing to take a "wait and see" approach to the offense for a while.

 

[bajaden]

Yes, but it still doesn't answer the question: Why Jimmer instead of IT or Brooks at the end of the 4th quarter? The only thing that I can come up with is that Smart wants to continue to develop Jimmer and he feels confident enough in his judgement to put him in there with the game on the line. Still, if he wants to develop Jimmer with the game on the line, it would seem that he should also want to develop IT with the game on the line; and that's a zero sum game, unless he goes with a micro backcourt and plays the two of them at the same time. I still don't get it.

Well first, Jimmer was the only one that was actually trying to run the offense, and I guess Smart liked what he was doing. He was also being effective with his scoring ability. Secondly, Smart has a tendecy to ride a horse thats leading till it drops dead. Going back to last year, many times when he had a unit on the floor that was effective, he had a tendecy to forget about Cousins or JT etc. and ride that group way too long. He's already done it this year. I suspect thats what happened with Jimmer in the 4th quarter. Sort of a, if it ain't broke, don't fix it attitude.

As I said, its just one game, and for one game it worked. He got the win. I also suspect that the Kings, unlike some of the fans, haven't given up on Jimmer as a future PG for the team. So, he has to get experience where and when he can, and when he happens to play well, which he's done lately, they're likely to stick with him for longer periods of time. Look, I don't care if he plays 5 minutes or 20 minutes as long as it adds up to wins. And I don't care whose minutes he steals as long as he's effective.

In the end, its not up to us to decide how good he can be, or what his total potential is. Its up to him to make us believers.

 

[tyreeeke]

Well first, Jimmer was the only one that was actually trying to run the offense, and I guess Smart liked what he was doing. He was also being effective with his scoring ability. Secondly, Smart has a tendecy to ride a horse thats leading till it drops dead. Going back to last year, many times when he had a unit on the floor that was effective, he had a tendecy to forget about Cousins or JT etc. and ride that group way too long. He's already done it this year. I suspect thats what happened with Jimmer in the 4th quarter. Sort of a, if it ain't broke, don't fix it attitude.

As I said, its just one game, and for one game it worked. He got the win. I also suspect that the Kings, unlike some of the fans, haven't given up on Jimmer as a future PG for the team. So, he has to get experience where and when he can, and when he happens to play well, which he's done lately, they're likely to stick with him for longer periods of time. Look, I don't care if he plays 5 minutes or 20 minutes as long as it adds up to wins. And I don't care whose minutes he steals as long as he's effective.

In the end, its not up to us to decide how good he can be, or what his total potential is. Its up to him to make us believers.

You are by far the greatest poster on this board. Very intelligent and unbiased, you just speak the truth. Wow.

 

[cuad]

Oh please, that is not true.