Kings at Jazz 11/21/2010, 6PM

[RookieOfTheDay]

you can only play defense so much. It does not matter though if you can't score the ball and you can't expect to stop them everytime down the floor.

Exactly. That's why I was saying that this new "defensive intensity" is fool's gold. It's really just wasted energy if you can't have some decent offense to go with it. Even The Celtics can't win on defense alone.

 

[BMiller52]

This suggests to me that your expectations may not have been realistic. It's all well and to the good that you thought this team would get to .500 this season, but teams built around a young core rarely develop that quickly. Perhaps you thought we'd have an "overnight" turnaround, like the 2003-04 Nuggets, but those results are far from typical. In most cases, for teams built around a young nucleus, it takes between 2-4 seasons, just to get to .500.

To me, the season has only been thrown away if the kids aren't better at the end of the season than they were at the end of last season. And, while they're not better right now, I'm not prepared to say, thirteen games in, that they're not going to be better by April. So, no, I'm not prepared to say that the season's been thrown away just yet.

It's not that they're not getting better, it's that the majority of them are getting worse/have gotten worse than they finished or started last year(Casspi, Thompson for example).

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

It's not that they're not getting better, it's that the majority of them are getting worse/have gotten worse than they finished or started last year(Casspi, Thompson for example).

Landry too. He's playing far worse than he was at the end of last season. On the other side though, Beno and Francisco have been playing better than ever for the most part.

 

[Tetsujin]

If I was Adelman I'd feel pretty vindicated by the fact that the team hasn't made the playoffs since they canned him and that they made the playoffs every season he was the coach.

There is a good chance that won't be the case this year, regarding the Houston making the playoffs part.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

There's nothing that needs refuting as far as I can see. I do not agree that people should try and be positive. I also don't think anyone should try and be negative. Each individual should approach it from their own perspective and arrive at their own conclusions. If you can find positives right now, great, more power to you...

Your posting history does not reflect this attitude. And that, simply that, is the problem.

You haven't been living and letting live. You haven't been embracing an attitude of letting people arrive at their own conclusions. You have been telling people who try to stay positive that they are living in fantasy land. You can't do that, and then jump back behind your shield of "reality" when you get called out on it. That's not going to fly around here.

I'm not a positive person in general, and anybody who's been on this board longer than a minute and a half can vouch for that. If you would just defend your position without "toeing" the insult line while you did it, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

It's not that they're not getting better, it's that the majority of them are getting worse/have gotten worse than they finished or started last year(Casspi, Thompson for example).

Like I said, thirteen games.

You may have noticed (or possibly not) that I didn't say that people shouldn't be upset, or frustrated, or whatever. But to call the season "thrown away" seems a little premature.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Your posting history does not reflect this attitude. And that, simply that, is the problem.

You haven't been living and letting live. You haven't been embracing an attitude of letting people arrive at their own conclusions. You have been telling people who try to stay positive that they are living in fantasy land. You can't do that, and then jump back behind your shield of "reality" when you get called out on it. That's not going to fly around here.

I'm not a positive person in general, and anybody who's been on this board longer than a minute and a half can vouch for that. If you would just defend your position without "toeing" the insult line while you did it, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Perhaps you haven't been being observant enough. Generally what happens, is I post my opinion/view on something. Then folks will respond telling me how I'm being negative, pessimistic, or ever a troll, etc. So I respond by pointing out that I'm merely being realistic and that perhaps they're simply being delusional by not wanting to accept reality. If you pay attention, you'll see that I never seek people out to "correct" their views. I may disagree with them, but that's just the nature of discussion. Expressing one's views isn't tantamount to claiming that everyone else shroud share in or embrace those views.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Like I said, thirteen games.

You may have noticed (or possibly not) that I didn't say that people shouldn't be upset, or frustrated, or whatever. But to call the season "thrown away" seems a little premature.

You say thirteen games as if it's not enough to glean an accurate appraisal of this team. Generally teams that start out as bad as The Kings have don't suddenly make a big turnaround. Maybe it's happened a few times but if it did I'd bet it was on a team with a lot better roster than this one that was just underachieving. The Kings aren't underachieving, though. What you see is what they are. They just simply aren't that good.

 

[Lockehead]

Just finished watching the game..
The only good part was the last 5 minutes or so when coach let the boys play without timeouts and substitutions, even if it was garbage time
Great to see Cousins starting to get a bit more confident in his abilities knocking down several jumpers in his face up game, and getting to the line 10 times tonight

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Perhaps you haven't been being observant enough. Generally what happens, is I post my opinion/view on something. Then folks will respond telling me how I'm being negative, pessimistic, or ever a troll, etc. So I respond by pointing out that I'm merely being realistic and that perhaps they're simply being delusional by not wanting to accept reality. If you pay attention, you'll see that I never seek people out to "correct" their views. I may disagree with them, but that's just the nature of discussion. Expressing one's views isn't tantamount to claiming that everyone else shroud share in or embrace those views.

Challenge Accepted!

So, I've spent the better part of the last three hours poring over every single post you've made on this message board with the username RookieOfTheDay... And it turns out that things didn't really transpire as you claim they transpired. What actually happens most often is you post your opinion/view on something, and someone makes an argument against it, and then you call them deluded/accuse them of wearing rose-colored glasses/etc., and then people call you negative/pessimistic/troll, etc. There really was only one occurrence of somebody saying something inflammatory to you that wasn't precipitated by you saying something inflammatory first, and that was when you were trying to make the case that we should have tried to sign Gay or Stoudemire in the offseason.

I find your claim that you never "seek people out" to be somewhat specious, as that isn't what you stand accused of. I have accused you of not letting people live, as you claim that you do, and of calling people deluded for having a positive point of view, as if reality precludes one from looking at things from the "glass half-empty" side. And your track record here shows that you are, in fact, guilty of what I have accused you of.

Ugh... You know, I'm one of the more negative people here, in general, and just the fact that you've made me have to defend the positive point of view puts you on my **** list...

Spoiler

Sixty-six percent of the previous sentence was said with tongue firmly in cheek...

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You say thirteen games as if it's not enough to glean an accurate appraisal of this team.

For once, you have my intent exactly right; yes, as a matter of fact, that is precisely how I am saying it.

Generally teams that start out as bad as The Kings have don't suddenly make a big turnaround. Maybe it's happened a few times but if it did I'd bet it was on a team with a lot better roster than this one that was just underachieving. The Kings aren't underachieving, though. What you see is what they are. They just simply aren't that good.

Methinks you are conflating "turnaround" with "development." While often interconnected they are, nonetheless, mutually exclusive. If the kids end up better at the end of the season than they were at the end of last season, then development will have been achieved, and a "thrown away" season will have been averted, even if we only win thirty games. And yes, I absolutely assert that thirteen games is not nearly enough time to determine whether this will occur. In fact, from my point of view, the kids are already progressing and developing better than they were three games ago, losses notwithstanding. At least now, there appear to be signs of a consistent rotation on the horizon. I see young, inconsistent players going through growing pains together; what I do not see is wasting or wasted talent, or a wasted season. Not yet, anyway.

What we're trying to do with this team, groom 5-6 kids who all came into the league at more or less the same time, and develop them into a contender/championship team; that's virtually unprecedented in the history of the NBA. The closest equivalent is the Thunder, and they still had two sub-25 win seasons after drafting Durant before they blew up. Playoffs? That's rich. The goal should never have been the eighth seed in the first place... the goal should be 3-8 game improvement, player development, continuity and cohesion. Perhaps you simply want it all too quickly?

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

So, I've spent the better part of the last three hours poring over every single post you've made on this message board with the username RookieOfTheDay... And it turns out that things didn't really transpire as you claim they transpired. What actually happens most often is you post your opinion/view on something, and someone makes an argument against it, and then you call them deluded/accuse them of wearing rose-colored glasses/etc., and then people call you negative/pessimistic/troll, etc.

You're either being disingenuous or just have an innate penchant for oversimplification and or distortion. You’re spinning it (or maybe you’re honestly seeing it) as if what’s happening is that people make valid/legitimate arguments and I merely respond with insults. The very notion of which is pure hogwash. I always provide reasons for why I have the opinions/views that I have.

Many people simply don't seem to grasp what opinions/views are. They think their own opinions/views are facts. That leads them to dismiss other people's opinions/views as being "incorrect" if they don't fall in line with certain parameters, a general consensus, etc. That's what compels people to react with annoyance/dismissal to certian opinions/views like, say, "The Kings should have tried to get Rudy Gay". They think "The Kings should have tried to get Rudy Gay" is factually/objectively false so they can't accept that someone would have that view/opinion. So when they encounter that opinion/view, they respond with things like “You just don’t know basketball”, “You’re wrong they were smart not to get Rudy Gay”, “Rudy Gay wouldn’t have helped the team that much” etc.

The reason the respond in that way is because they believe that (or whatever) opinion/views are factually/objectively wrong/false.. If they didn't believe that, they wouldn't be responding in ways that indicate a belief that certain opinions/views are wrong/false.

There really was only one occurrence of somebody saying something inflammatory to you that wasn't precipitated by you saying something inflammatory first

Obviously subjective and down to interpretation. I try and conduct myself by the "treat others as you'd have them treat you" rule. The only time I generally break that rule is if I don't like the way someone is treating/responding to me. If I feel someone is responding in a snippy, condescending, know it all, etc. manner, then I respond accordingly. As I said though, that's all based on subjective interpretation, obviously.

I find your claim that you never "seek people out" to be somewhat specious, as that isn't what you stand accused of. I have accused you of not letting people live, as you claim that you do, and of calling people deluded for having a positive point of view, as if reality precludes one from looking at things from the "glass half-empty" side. And your track record here shows that you are, in fact, guilty of what I have accused you of.

The only way it makes sense to me that you'd arrive at that conclusion, is if you're approaching it from a perspective that basically says the only way to accept opposing views, is to either agree with them, or keep your disagreement to yourself. That seems like a pretty crass way of looking at it. Of course I'm going to defend my views, point out where I think opposing views are wrong, etc. when confronted. That doesn't conflict with not seeking people out to correct them, or not accepting that other people can have differing opinions/views.

and just the fact that you've made me have to defend the positive point of view puts you on my **** list...

Oh no, not that. Anything but that, LOL.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Methinks you are conflating "turnaround" with "development."

I think you could be conflating stagnation with development

If the kids end up better at the end of the season than they were at the end of last season, then development will have been achieved, and a "thrown away" season will have been averted, even if we only win thirty games.

No argument there. IF that happens. That's a big if, though. I maintain that there's nothing to suggest that will happen. I'd make a bet that they win 27 or less games this year.

And yes, I absolutely assert that thirteen games is not nearly enough time to determine whether this will occur. In fact, from my point of view, the kids are already progressing and developing better than they were three games ago, losses notwithstanding. At least now, there appear to be signs of a consistent rotation on the horizon.

I don't see anything like that at all. It's basically a guessing game how many, if any minutes players like Casspi, Greene, and Thompson will get on any given night. Vegas could have a "guess The Kings starting line up" game at this point.

I see young, inconsistent players going through growing pains together; what I do not see is wasting or wasted talent, or a wasted season. Not yet, anyway.

There's more experienced players who are 25 or older on the roster than there are really young inexperienced guys. The "they're young and still figuring out how to play" card is about past its expiration date.

What we're trying to do with this team, groom 5-6 kids who all came into the league at more or less the same time, and develop them into a contender/championship team; that's virtually unprecedented in the history of the NBA

Is it? Seems to me that everyone on the team other than Evans and Cousins is completely tradable at this point. It's a gamble whether Casspi, Greene, or Thompson will ever develop into genuine starter caliber players, much less all three of them developing to that level.

The goal should never have been the eighth seed in the first place... the goal should be 3-8 game improvement, player development, continuity and cohesion. Perhaps you simply want it all too quickly?

Playoffs? Who said anything about playoffs this year? Not me, that's for sure. I did expect 33-38 wins, though. I doubt you'd find many who'd claim that's too lofty a goal.

 

[piksi]

Dentist + lortab = lost day.

At least I missed this disaster. Someone else needs to do the game thread for the next game.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You're either being disingenuous or just have an innate penchant for oversimplification and or distortion. You’re spinning it (or maybe you’re honestly seeing it) as if what’s happening is that people make valid/legitimate arguments and I merely respond with insults. The very notion of which is pure hogwash. I always provide reasons for why I have the opinions/views that I have.

I re-read all 211 posts you had made prior to this morning, and the responses to them, where applicable. Call it oversimplification if you wish, but I did, in fact, see what was actually there.

Many people simply don't seem to grasp what opinions/views are. They think their own opinions/views are facts. That leads them to dismiss other people's opinions/views as being "incorrect" if they don't fall in line with certain parameters, a general consensus, etc. That's what compels people to react with annoyance/dismissal to certian opinions/views like, say, "The Kings should have tried to get Rudy Gay". They think "The Kings should have tried to get Rudy Gay" is factually/objectively false so they can't accept that someone would have that view/opinion. So when they encounter that opinion/view, they respond with things like “You just don’t know basketball”, “You’re wrong they were smart not to get Rudy Gay”, “Rudy Gay wouldn’t have helped the team that much” etc.

I don't know if you aware, but your opinion that the Kings should have signed Gay is not fact, either, and your claim that he would have made the Kings better is just as much conjecture as opinions to the contrary.

Obviously subjective and down to interpretation. I try and conduct myself by the "treat others as you'd have them treat you" rule...

Perhaps you should try harder, because what's coming across from you is the opposite of that.

The only way it makes sense to me that you'd arrive at that conclusion, is if you're approaching it from a perspective that basically says the only way to accept opposing views, is to either agree with them, or keep your disagreement to yourself. That seems like a pretty crass way of looking at it. Of course I'm going to defend my views, point out where I think opposing views are wrong, etc. when confronted. That doesn't conflict with not seeking people out to correct them, or not accepting that other people can have differing opinions/views.

Loosely translated: Don't shoot the messenger! LOL!

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

but I did, in fact, see what was actually there.

Words, phrases, etc. don’t have “actual” meanings. They’re open to interpretation and wholly subjective. The only meaning they have is the meaning assigned to them by the reader. They don’t contain any objective/extra-mental meaning.

I don't know if you aware, but your opinion that the Kings should have signed Gay is not fact, either, and your claim that he would have made the Kings better is just as much conjecture as opinions to the contrary.

Right, exactly. I didn’t, and wouldn’t claim otherwise.

Perhaps you should try harder, because what's coming across from you is the opposite of that.

I don’t concern myself with how I come across to others. Especially people I don’t even know. I trust my own judgement in matters like this more than a stranger's. I think it’d be odd not to.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I think you could be conflating stagnation with development ...

They haven't stagnated... yet.

I don't see anything like that at all. It's basically a guessing game how many, if any minutes players like Casspi, Greene, and Thompson will get on any given night. Vegas could have a "guess The Kings starting line up" game at this point.

Well, I guess we'll just have to put a pin in that one until a week from now.

There's more experienced players who are 25 or older on the roster than there are really young inexperienced guys. The "they're young and still figuring out how to play" card is about past its expiration date.

Raw numbers will tell you that this is not so. There are really only six "veterans" on this team, half of whom did not have any significant experience prior to the 2007-08 season. By my count, that leaves eleven out of fourteen guys on the roster with less than four years of meaningful NBA experience. The "still figuring out how to play" card is unquestionably still on the table.

Is it? Seems to me that everyone on the team other than Evans and Cousins is completely tradable at this point. It's a gamble whether Casspi, Greene, or Thompson will ever develop into genuine starter caliber players, much less all three of them developing to that level.

You're right... there's no chance Greene will ever be as good as Andrei Kirilenko... Thompson as good as Jason Maxiell? No way.

Playoffs? Who said anything about playoffs this year? Not me, that's for sure.

Yes you did: you said at least twice since the season started that you thought that they would compete for the eighth seed. Which, from my point of view, is getting your hopes up. That you've changed your mind doesn't mean you didn't say it.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Words, phrases, etc. don’t have “actual” meanings. They’re open to interpretation and wholly subjective. The only meaning they have is the meaning assigned to them by the reader. They don’t contain any objective/extra-mental meaning.

I find the veracity of this statement to be highly questionable.

Right, exactly. I didn’t, and wouldn’t claim otherwise.

Ah, so? Claiming that posters who think that we should not have signed Gay attempted to come across as their opinion was fact, while maintaing that your claim that we should sign him was merely you expressing your opinion sounds suspiciously like moving the goalposts.

I don’t concern myself with how I come across to others. Especially people I don’t even know. I trust my own judgement in matters like this more than a stranger's. I think it’d be odd not to.

Coming to bookstores soon, How To Make Friends and Influence People, by RookieOfTheDay.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

You're right... there's no chance Greene will ever be as good as Andrei Kirilenko... Thompson as good as Jason Maxiell? No way.

I wouldn’t say no way. I’d say it’s a gamble. Oh wait, that is what I said.

Yes you did: you said at least twice since the season started that you thought that they would compete for the eighth seed. Which, from my point of view, is getting your hopes up. That you've changed your mind doesn't mean you didn't say it.

Without knowing exactly what quote you’re referring to, it’s hard to respond to that. I very well may have said that they had a chance to compete for the 8 spot, or that it was in the realm of possibility that they could compete for the 8 spot. But I guarantee that at no time did I say they would compete for the 8 spot, or that I expected them to compete for the 8 spot. Not even before the season started. I’d bet the farm on that. In fact, I recall a conversation with a friend before the season where I said that I thought they had maybe a 20% to 30% shot at best of competing for the 8 spot. That was based on a best case scenario of them taking advantage of the soft November schedule and building a little cushion record wise. Obviously once they choked November away, any chance I thought they had for competing for an 8 spot went with it.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Ah, so? Claiming that posters who think that we should not have signed Gay attempted to come across as their opinion was fact, while maintaing that your claim that we should sign him was merely you expressing your opinion sounds suspiciously like moving the goalposts.

There never was a goalpost. We're talking about two different things. I didn't claim it's them merely stating their opinion that makes it seem as if they believe it's a fact. It's the nature of the reaction to opposing opinions that makes me think they believe it's a fact. When folks get their feathers ruffled over someone stating a certain view or opinion, that leads me to believe that perhaps they feel their own opinions are the correct ones to have. That's not just based on the fact that someone disagrees with something, it's how they manifest that disagreement that gleans insight into whether or not they're regarding their opinions as facts.

 

[FaStRmAn]

I see a team with a lot of flaws. A team whose main scorer is hurt, or injured and hiding it. I see a team whose players are interested in scoring but not so much on their defensive game. I see a coach looking for answers, but never asks the right questions because he is too busy trying to find a lineup to run his seemingly non existent offensive set. When does the coach stop testing out lineup configurations and start instituting a defensive and offensive game plan and relay that to the players he chooses to put on the floor. First and foremost, this Kings team seems to be more about teaching youth than it is about wining. Westphal is stuck between teaching these kids how to play and bringing in veterans who help the team to win. Paul needs to do both. That is a tall order considering the young players he has do not play very good defense, and yet offensively they are stagnant and selfish. Westphal deserves a full season with this group to see if He can continue to teach and point this young team in the right direction. ALL the Kings players and All the Kings men may have trouble putting this season together again. Here are some of my observations:

1) Bench Tyreke - Lets face it, either the Kid is hurt or is having one helluva sophomore jinx. Either way he needs a week off to get his head back on straight.
2) Carl Landry: - He is a defensive liability. Bring him off the bench and start a real power forward. I think JT or Greene would be better than Landry starting at PF.
3) Beno Udrich - He does a good job setting up the offense, but unless he starts playing tougher defense he is a liability. Leave him on bench till his defense improves.
4) Sam Dalmebert - He is the best defender we have. His offense is not very polished. But we need him to defend the post no matter what he scores.
5) Boogie Cousins - Cousins is going to become a monster. He has the all around game to become dominant. Play him more and get him as much experience as possible.
6) Cisco Garcia - He is one of the few players with a jumpshot that actually goes in. Need to find more time for him and run plays to set screens for him.
7) Omri Casspi - The second best shooter on the team, maybe the best if given enough attempts. Looks like some players are freezing him out. Run plays to get him open looks.
8) JT - Is there a more clumsy guy on the roster? Are his hands REALLY small or something. Fumbles the ball a lot and misses too many layups. And he fouls on defense.
9) Hassan Whiteside - If this season is about training the youth, this kid needs to get some minutes on the floor. 3-5 minutes a game to get his feet wet. Only way he is going to improve.
10) Luther Head - Is it just me or does this guy always look like he is out of control? He needs to slow down and make good decisions. We need his offense and defense.

Just seems that PW is playing players based on their ability to defend, and that isn't always conducive to the offense. Our best defenders are not great offensive players. The coach needs to find a way to mix up what he has on the floor to find a balance of good defense and good enough offense. The Kings need to keep at least one good shooter on the floor at all times, and play the inside out game with Cousins or Dalembert, while running screens or playing pick and roll. I am convinced that teams are not going to double Landry, so throwing it to him in the post is a one on one opportunity for Landry. And since he has sticky hands, it usually ends up getting hoisted up at the rim. This team needs to move more without the ball and set WAY more screens. If the Kings can get the other teams defenses moving, maybe they can get some better shots. Maybe then they can score over 100 and win a few more games. The offense is WAY too stagnant and predictable for the Kings to win many games. Inside out game and staggered screens on the perimeter should get the Kings more open looks. It just doesnt seem like the Kings are running any kind of offense, and that is why they are not scoring or winning.

 

[mcsluggo]

Mr Slim Citrus: the definition of a rose colored glasses wearing polyanna blowing sunshine on an otherwise grey and gloomy world.

handing out flowers and smiles since 1975.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Words, phrases, etc. don’t have “actual” meanings. They’re open to interpretation and wholly subjective. The only meaning they have is the meaning assigned to them by the reader. They don’t contain any objective/extra-mental meaning.

I agree completely. Words have precise meanings, which if unknown or unclear, can be found in reference books such as dictionaries. Clearly the intent of any given speech/text is imbued upon it by the speaker/writer when he/she carefully chooses the words that are used. The reader should not attempt to put their own spin on somebody else's words, but instead should try to understand them as they were written. I'm glad that you and I are in 100% concordance on this issue.

 

[cuad]

It wasn't all that bad. the starting unit ground out a win in the first quarter. Unfortunately, the bench lineup was putrid offensively and defensively, so then the rest of the players just lost interest. Still, no 30 point quarters, and we held them under 96 points and won the rebounding battle.

We just need an offense, but I guess Westphal is doing things one thing at a time.