Keegan Murray

Kingster said:
The TS% of 65% is what excites me - very efficient for a 20+ scorer. He could be a 3rd option next year, which I would view as a big win for the Kings. I like the fact that he's not coming into a team bereft of talent, which would put pressure on him to be the savior. He should be able to play his game and slowly but surely improve, while not having to do too much. I don't want to see him lose minutes to Barnes. I continue to hope that Barnes will be traded for a legit 3 so that Murray can comfortably take that stretch 4 position with +/- 30 minutes per game. The question that I'm curious about is whether Brown will play him at the center position against smaller lineups, the Warriors for example.
Click to expand...

The great thing about the fit is that he's also not just going out there and taking a chunk of the offense for himself, he's getting his shots largely from motion and screen plays. They have been using some of that Warriors rub screen play and that will open things up for Fox and Domas for sure. I'm pretty sure he and Barnes are out there together and play starters minutes unless Murray has some hiccups when it comes to actual NBA play where the offense isn't running to him as an off ball player or Barnes and he don't work well. I still think he and Barnes both play off the ball in ways that you want from SF/PF. Also, I don't recall seeing Murray play a single minute next to two bigs during SL. He played at PF and some at C that one game. Maybe Brown sees it differently but I think they view him in the same spot as Metu/Lyles, not Barnes even Fernandez came out and said he's more PF right now.
 
iowamcnabb said:
my biggest thing regarding fit which I brought up in pre draft discussions is there are very few historically successful backcourts that feature two primary scorers. That’s especially true if both have questionable 3 point shooting. The only really elite tandem is Dame and CJ and one could argue CJ looks better now that he is is not paired with Lilllard. I fully expect Ivey to be a good maybe even great player and I think he landed in a good spot out in Detroit.
Click to expand...

There have been a few that were effective. The Wizards finished 4th in the Eastern Conference in 2016-2017 with Wall & Beal each averaging 23 ppg. And of course there's Steph & Klay, but not only are those two of the greatest shooters in NBA history, their games complement each other well. Even Beal and Wall (who both are/were a bit ball dominant) were a better fit. I expect Ivey to be a better 3pt shooter than Fox fairly early in his career but they are still really similar players. I'm not saying it couldn't work, but history suggests it isn't likely.
 
funkykingston said:
There have been a few that were effective. The Wizards finished 4th in the Eastern Conference in 2016-2017 with Wall & Beal each averaging 23 ppg. And of course there's Steph & Klay, but not only are those two of the greatest shooters in NBA history, their games complement each other well. Even Beal and Wall (who both are/were a bit ball dominant) were a better fit. I expect Ivey to be a better 3pt shooter than Fox fairly early in his career but they are still really similar players. I'm not saying it couldn't work, but history suggests it isn't likely.
Click to expand...

Beal/Wall is definitely one I forgot about. Still, it’s largely a bet against history that an Ivey Fox pairing would maximize both player’s potential. If we drafted Ivey, it would be because we saw him as a level above Fox and someone to start over and build around.
 
Dumars and Isaiah Thomas were dope. Terry Porter and Clyde Drexler as well. Sam Cassell and Ray Allen on the bucks and Parker and Ginobli were pretty good.

The whole idea with Ivey is that Sabonis is the hub of the offense - and he can make it work. So if you thought Ivey had star power and Murray did not - you could justify it that way (especially since Ivey is not a point guard).

That said - the Kings took Murray and I am very much looking forward to rooting for him for a very long time.
 
kb02 said:
Yea, 3% odds of winning it. Though, it's really more like 3% x 50% = 1.5%, because of the binary outcome. Easy pass.
Click to expand...
Apologies if the board isn't working correctly, but did you delete the post he replied to, the one where you literally said that was your play, and think you could get away with this? Because his post still has the quote but goes to a dead link.
 
midtowner said:
Dumars and Isaiah Thomas were dope. Terry Porter and Clyde Drexler as well. Sam Cassell and Ray Allen on the bucks and Parker and Ginobli were pretty good.

The whole idea with Ivey is that Sabonis is the hub of the offense - and he can make it work. So if you thought Ivey had star power and Murray did not - you could justify it that way (especially since Ivey is not a point guard).

That said - the Kings took Murray and I am very much looking forward to rooting for him for a very long time.
Click to expand...

Those are some other good examples. Going back before my time we could add Earl the Pearl and Walt Frazier. They were fairly similar players. I thought about Parker and Ginobili but since Manu was generally not a starter it's a bit different dynamic.

Kind of interesting that in the era of small ball, outside shooting and scoring PGs that most of the examples of successful scoring backcourts are from years ago and not today.

Harden & Westbrook put up gaudy numbers on the Rockets but weren't all that successful as a team. In the year that the Rockets were the #1 seed in the West and came closest to a title Harden put up 30.4 ppg and 8.8 apg while Paul averaged 18.6 ppg and 7.9 apg. They weren't an ideal match but clearly worked together better than Russ and Harden.
 
Trae-Murray has the best chance of working of any super back-court duo in a long time (outside of Steph/Klay). Murray lessens the tremendous creation workload that Trae has had the last few years, gets him into some potentially much easier off-ball shooting spots while also getting him off the PoA on defense. He's literally been one of the worst defensive players in the league since he joined the NBA, but the offense has been so good that people kind of just ignore it.

That team on paper should be excellent in all facets. Two stud lead creators, spacing at the 3/4 with Hunter/Collins, 2 lobs threats in Collins/Capela, Rim protection from Capela, perimeter defense from Hunter/Murray. Have an elite bench creator in Bogi with tremendous size/versatility off the bench with Griffin/Johnson/Okongwu.
 
The_Jamal said:
Trae-Murray has the best chance of working of any super back-court duo in a long time (outside of Steph/Klay). Murray lessens the tremendous creation workload that Trae has had the last few years, gets him into some potentially much easier off-ball shooting spots while also getting him off the PoA on defense. He's literally been one of the worst defensive players in the league since he joined the NBA, but the offense has been so good that people kind of just ignore it.

That team on paper should be excellent in all facets. Two stud lead creators, spacing at the 3/4 with Hunter/Collins, 2 lobs threats in Collins/Capela, Rim protection from Capela, perimeter defense from Hunter/Murray. Have an elite bench creator in Bogi with tremendous size/versatility off the bench with Griffin/Johnson/Okongwu.
Click to expand...

I think the Hawks main problem will be the same one many of us flagged after their FA spending spree from a couple years ago - can they afford to keep most of that roster together.

Lots good (and well paid players) but only one or two stars so they are banking on an expensive and balanced roster vs paying two or three stars the max and filling out the roster cheaply/smartly.

For it to work they'll likely have to shed and replace good players like they did with Huerter and likely will with Collins.
 
funkykingston said:
I think the Hawks main problem will be the same one many of us flagged after their FA spending spree from a couple years ago - can they afford to keep most of that roster together.

Lots good (and well paid players) but only one or two stars so they are banking on an expensive and balanced roster vs paying two or three stars the max and filling out the roster cheaply/smartly.

For it to work they'll likely have to shed and replace good players like they did with Huerter and likely will with Collins.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't see how they keep Hunter at all. Murray is going to get a max extension in 2 years, Capela is on the books for 60 mil over the next 3 seasons, Collins at $100 mil over the next 4. Trae is making $40+ over the next 5. If Bogi opts into his PO after next year, they're already sitting at $138 mil in cap for 8 guys. I think they hope Jalen or Griffin develop into that role next season and they aren't left with a massive hole once Hunter gets big offers. And if they do decide to keep Hunter, they're basically waving goodbye to Okongwu who is a RFA the season after and would garner an enormous amount of interest in FA.

The 23 off-season sneakily has a lot of guys who can really help this team in RFA. Brandon Clarke, Grant Williams, Cam Johnson, DeAndre Hunter, Andrew Wiggins as a UFA. The Suns and Hawks especially from a cap scenario seem very unlikely to match any serious Cam/Hunter offers. Barnes would have to be let go, but the Kings can be competitive on adding another good young talent (with the RFA's) or a better fitting wing (Wiggins, still only 27)
 
Last edited:
pdxKingsFan said:
Apologies if the board isn't working correctly, but did you delete the post he replied to, the one where you literally said that was your play, and think you could get away with this? Because his post still has the quote but goes to a dead link.
Click to expand...

No, he did not delete the post. The post is, however, several pages back (it's on page 2, while we are currently on page 5) and for some reason the links won't span pages. The quoted post still exists.

It is not correct for a user to say that they cannot delete their own posts, they in fact can, a moderator is not required. Furthermore they can edit their own posts, which can from time to time result in a quoted post not saying what the quoted portion says, though rarely, if ever, have I seen this used in a "nefarious" fashion. (I am not certain whether a user can edit their own posts silently, i.e. without an "edited post" note coming up. Pro tip: mods CAN edit posts silently or non-silently as they choose.)

But again, in this case, that did not happen. The post in question is #59 in the thread, on page 2.

Now...as to "deleted" posts... This thread has gotten bogged down in a one-vs-one argument, which is not just boring but usually irritating to everybody else involved. I am going to go back to the start of this particular argument and delete en masse. @kb02 and @PorchSurfin may take the argument or the apologies or whatever to PMs, please and thank you.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
No, he did not delete the post. The post is, however, several pages back (it's on page 2, while we are currently on page 5) and for some reason the links won't span pages. The quoted post still exists.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying (I did go back and look for it, but that's good to know about the spanning pages thing for the future)
 
Capt. Factorial said:
No, he did not delete the post. The post is, however, several pages back (it's on page 2, while we are currently on page 5) and for some reason the links won't span pages. The quoted post still exists.

It is not correct for a user to say that they cannot delete their own posts, they in fact can, a moderator is not required. Furthermore they can edit their own posts, which can from time to time result in a quoted post not saying what the quoted portion says, though rarely, if ever, have I seen this used in a "nefarious" fashion. (I am not certain whether a user can edit their own posts silently, i.e. without an "edited post" note coming up. Pro tip: mods CAN edit posts silently or non-silently as they choose.)

But again, in this case, that did not happen. The post in question is #59 in the thread, on page 2.

Now...as to "deleted" posts... This thread has gotten bogged down in a one-vs-one argument, which is not just boring but usually irritating to everybody else involved. I am going to go back to the start of this particular argument and delete en masse. @kb02 and @PorchSurfin may take the argument or the apologies or whatever to PMs, please and thank you.
Click to expand...

My experience has been that there's a grace period of a couple minutes in which I can silently edit my own posts (usually to correct misspellings or clarify points that don't read how I intended them) without getting that "Last Edited" time stamp added on. I also think that grace period gets extended a bit (as much as 5 minutes maybe??) so long as no one else has made another post in the same thread yet, but I can't definitively confirm that.
 
IMHO I feel most ppl wanted Ivey not becouse of who he is, but some just really scared to miss on the next Ja ( everyone can understand that after passing on Luka)....but Ivey will probably never be close to Ja, and me personally after reading this...
If You Don’t Know Keegan Murray Yet, You Will Soon Enough
https://www.theringer.com/2022/5/19/23126315/keegan-murray-nba-draft
was always rooting for the Murray pick.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
No, he did not delete the post. The post is, however, several pages back (it's on page 2, while we are currently on page 5) and for some reason the links won't span pages. The quoted post still exists.

It is not correct for a user to say that they cannot delete their own posts, they in fact can, a moderator is not required. Furthermore they can edit their own posts, which can from time to time result in a quoted post not saying what the quoted portion says, though rarely, if ever, have I seen this used in a "nefarious" fashion. (I am not certain whether a user can edit their own posts silently, i.e. without an "edited post" note coming up. Pro tip: mods CAN edit posts silently or non-silently as they choose.)

But again, in this case, that did not happen. The post in question is #59 in the thread, on page 2.

Now...as to "deleted" posts... This thread has gotten bogged down in a one-vs-one argument, which is not just boring but usually irritating to everybody else involved. I am going to go back to the start of this particular argument and delete en masse. @kb02 and @PorchSurfin may take the argument or the apologies or whatever to PMs, please and thank you.
Click to expand...

Good moderating. Thanks
 
SacTownKid said:
The great thing about the fit is that he's also not just going out there and taking a chunk of the offense for himself, he's getting his shots largely from motion and screen plays. They have been using some of that Warriors rub screen play and that will open things up for Fox and Domas for sure. I'm pretty sure he and Barnes are out there together and play starters minutes unless Murray has some hiccups when it comes to actual NBA play where the offense isn't running to him as an off ball player or Barnes and he don't work well. I still think he and Barnes both play off the ball in ways that you want from SF/PF. Also, I don't recall seeing Murray play a single minute next to two bigs during SL. He played at PF and some at C that one game. Maybe Brown sees it differently but I think they view him in the same spot as Metu/Lyles, not Barnes even Fernandez came out and said he's more PF right now.
Click to expand...

Let's say that Barnes is a King when the season begins. When I search my memory bank on him I recall very few situations where he is running hard off of screens, catching, and then shooting quickly. Mostly he was standing around waiting to get the ball, at which point he'd take the outside shot or do his slow-mo-euro step to the basket. Did multiple Kings' head coaches not have him do the former because that's not his game, or was that not his game because they didn't ask it of him? I don't know the answer to the question, but it's just one more thing I'll be looking at closely. I see Barnes's value go down in a Warriors-type offense if he can't run off those screens and catch and shoot (or pass). Lastly, even if Barnes fits well in the offense, as I've said before my biggest concern is having him and Murray and Sabonis on the back line defensively.
 
Pimpis Zajoba said:
IMHO I feel most ppl wanted Ivey not becouse of who he is, but some just really scared to miss on the next Ja
Click to expand...
Combination of this combined with the "fit" word. Oddly I think many of the reasons for passing on Murray were the same reasons the anti-Luka crowd gave on why we should pass on him. Not athletic enough. Too close to a finished product. High floor, low ceiling. But so many focused on whoever said "Murray will be a great fit here and matches our most obvious needs" and turned that into WE PASSED ON LUKA BECAUSE MARVIN FIT BETTER WITH FOX! Which has also somehow turned Fox into a scapegoat for all of our woes that mostly center around Vlade/BW's mismanagement and a horrible coaching hire in Luke.
 
Now I'm hearing on ESPN radio about Holmes playing the 4 with Sabonis?!? :D Makes absolutely no sense, but that would be par for the course. I'm hoping this "floater" is due to the Kings' management trying to leverage the value of Holmes for a trade, not from any serious consideration.
 
Kingster said:
Now I'm hearing on ESPN radio about Holmes playing the 4 with Sabonis?!? :D Makes absolutely no sense, but that would be par for the course. I'm hoping this "floater" is due to the Kings' management trying to leverage the value of Holmes for a trade, not from any serious consideration.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it may happen situationally. I think we should give Holmes a pass for last year with all that was going on in his life. But I do prefer to see Fox and Sabonis and three shooters on the floor at most times, assuming Brown can get that unit to play defense.
 
pdxKingsFan said:
I'm sure it may happen situationally. I think we should give Holmes a pass for last year with all that was going on in his life. But I do prefer to see Fox and Sabonis and three shooters on the floor at most times, assuming Brown can get that unit to play defense.
Click to expand...

He can't shoot outside, he's not a cutter, not a catch and shoot, not much of a passer, can't spread the floor for Fox & Co. which according to Brown is necessary to the offense. Other than that, he's a great fit. They're saying *if* Sabonis can shoot 3s and Fox improves his 3 pt % considerably then Holmes could work. If pigs could fly it could also work. How many times have we seen the round peg crammed into the square hole?
 
You can get 3-6 minutes a game of Sabonis and Holmes with Sabonis on the arc and Holmes in the dunker spot. You just need the 3 others to be shooters. I probably would rather see it with Davion than Fox.

Davion
Monk
Heurter
Holmes
Sabonis

Can work for a few minutes here or there.
 
Kingster said:
He can't shoot outside, he's not a cutter, not a catch and shoot, not much of a passer, can't spread the floor for Fox & Co. which according to Brown is necessary to the offense. Other than that, he's a great fit. They're saying *if* Sabonis can shoot 3s and Fox improves his 3 pt % considerably then Holmes could work. If pigs could fly it could also work. How many times have we seen the round peg crammed into the square hole?
Click to expand...

I think it's fine in limited minutes and almost certainly is going to be tried for 4-5 minutes a game. Holmes is one our 7 best players and better defenders, they'll look to get him on the floor.

It's rough offensively, but I think it works pretty well on defense. Holmes is one of the best perimeter big defenders in basketball, but struggles with the beefy bois at C. Let him blow up the PnR while Sabonis handles the interior/rebounding.
 
Kingster said:
He can't shoot outside, he's not a cutter, not a catch and shoot, not much of a passer, can't spread the floor for Fox & Co. which according to Brown is necessary to the offense. Other than that, he's a great fit. They're saying *if* Sabonis can shoot 3s and Fox improves his 3 pt % considerably then Holmes could work. If pigs could fly it could also work. How many times have we seen the round peg crammed into the square hole?
Click to expand...
Like Jamal says, it's not going to be the featured set, but it's going to happen a few minutes a game. It has to. In fact it would be foolish not to try. He's too good a player not to have some crossover into the main rotation even if it is just to move him later for a traditional 3 which we desperately need. I am sure just getting something out of him after last year will rebound his trade value if there is no fit.
 
Kingster said:
He can't shoot outside, he's not a cutter, not a catch and shoot, not much of a passer, can't spread the floor for Fox & Co. which according to Brown is necessary to the offense. Other than that, he's a great fit. They're saying *if* Sabonis can shoot 3s and Fox improves his 3 pt % considerably then Holmes could work. If pigs could fly it could also work. How many times have we seen the round peg crammed into the square hole?
Click to expand...

Plus Holmes operates best where Domas is anchored. Have you seen a push shot from him from an area of the court that is not in the paint area, near the free throw line? It's not going to work unless Domas' improves his outside shooting and camps out on the perimeter or Holmes morphs into something that he's not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Balancing the First and Second Units
6 7 8
Replies
211
Views
9K
hrdboild
hrdboild
A
Keegan Murray is the Key to Saving the Sacramento Kings Season
Replies
0
Views
137
abc10.com
A
A
Murray scores 26 points to spark hot-shooting Kings to a 118-101 win over Jazz
Replies
0
Views
149
Associated Press
A
Tetsujin
Keegan “KEEGAN MURRAY” Murray
23 24 25
Replies
747
Views
58K
serbiangoat
S
Tetsujin
Colby Jones
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
pdxKingsFan
pdxKingsFan