I was just observing the Kings scores this year, and noticed that 30 games have been lost by 9 or less points! This team has been in a lot of games. If they had managed to come through and win at least half of these, the Kings would be close to the 40 win mark by now. That's not that bad, and a sign of great things to come in my opinion. Just thoughts.....
Kings have lost 30 close games this year
- Thread starter ppr
- Start date
Kings Fan Gerard
Bench
Good and bad thing I think. Good in sense that the team always competes and bad because the team cant seem to win any close games.
Löwenherz
Starter
If you've noticed, that's changed in the last few weeks. Reke's healthy, Thornton's been added, Cousins is getting through some of his growing pains, the starting line-up is more solidified (With Daly and Boogie playing together, which should have been the case all season) and the team is generally coming together.
With a high lottery pick and the most cap space in the NBA, this team is on the precipice of a huge leap. Which makes the current events all the more painful.
With a high lottery pick and the most cap space in the NBA, this team is on the precipice of a huge leap. Which makes the current events all the more painful.
mr. moustache
Bench
Glenn
Hall of Famer
Coach, SF and time. It seems so simple and it probably is.
Are people as unhappy with Westy now? He's really no different but he has stumbled on to a starting line up that works, guys off the bench that fit and other than this bizarre trait of using a guy for as a starter for a few weeks and then benching him for a few weeks, he's average. Most coaches are average. Some expert from the past said that most coaches make little difference in the W/L column, some cost you games, and some win you games. I think Westy is in that huge middle group.
I'd like an upgrade but it doesn't seem as crucial to me. When his contract is up at the end of next year, I'd go shoppping for that coach that can add to the W/L column.
Did people see that Karl has had 18 winning seasons in a row and the highest number is like 19 held by Jackson and Riley, both having had the huge advantage of coaching the Lakers? That little factoid jumped out at me. I like Karl but "Wow!"
DesertFox
Starter
When you factor in half their wins being within that margin as well, they've won about a quarter of the single digit games. Considering the team's youth and middling talent, and that's about right.
Figure an average team wins closer to half of those, plus the natural improvement from a young team, and 35+ wins is very possible next year.
Add in a FA and a lottery pick and they could be part of the crowed end of the playoff hunt.
Figure an average team wins closer to half of those, plus the natural improvement from a young team, and 35+ wins is very possible next year.
Add in a FA and a lottery pick and they could be part of the crowed end of the playoff hunt.
Section 101
All-Star
9 points is not a close game.
Depends on the game. Were they down by 20 then cut it to 9 in garbage time? Were they down by 4 and then tried to manage the end by fouling? There are too many variables there to be sure, but what would be a better number? 9 is about 3 to 5 possessions, which in retrospect, doesn't seem like much, but again, it depends on the circumstance.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
I wouldn't call 9 points a close game, it's just not a blowout. "Close game" to me is like when it's anyone's game with 30 seconds to go in the 4th and the final score ends up being decided by just a few points.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
A great many of our "close games" have been just that. Its been mentioned before that we lead the entire league in games we have tied or led in the 4th quarter and went on to lose. Not as if we have been making late "make the boxscore look better" charges. Quite the opposite usually -- our typical pattern has been to be right there with 6 minutes to go, and then find ways to lose it.
jalfa
Starter
Since 1980 there have been 20 champions and only 6 championship coaches. In the history of the NBA there have only been 26 coaches to win a NBA championship, the 5 winningest of which account for more than 50% of the championships. If anything, coaching is an underrated factor in winning, imo.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
Being "right there with 6 minutes to go, and then find ways to lose it" are not close games when you play games like that every week all season long. The score may be close in the first 7/8 of the game but what happens in the last 1/8 shows that it was never really as close as the score indicated. Better teams learned early in the season that they could mail it in for 40 minutes against the Kings and then get serious in the final minutes and get the win.
Oh, you mean like the Lakers and Magic? Didn't work out so well for them when we beat them, did it?
Many/most of these games have been very close until the very end and decided on "luck" or a last posession or two. Only a blind man or an idiot would argue otherwise. You choose which to be.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
Did I say it worked 100% of the time? Oh vey, posting here is like interacting with children. Any little thing will be nitpicked or gainsaid just for the sake of it. No one makes arguments, they're just argumentative.
That depends on how you define "close". By my definition, when you lose a bunch of games in the final few minutes, badly, it wasn't that close of a game. Being close for 40, 42, 43, 44, etc. minutes means very little. Closing out games consistently is what separates the good from the bad.
If agreeing with your crass assessment is what's required to not be blind or an idiot...then give me my seeing eye dog and collection of "For Dummies" books, in braille, of course.
Last edited:
It doesn't matter how frequently you're losing close games, doesn't change the characterization of those games as being "close".
You may have a point that good teams sometimes turned it up in the 4th and put us away, and that's part of the reason we were able to hang around for so long. But from watching the games, it's far more likely that the reason we lost so many games in the 4th quarter is because we turned the ball over too much. Mental mistakes, indicative of youth and inexperience, is what I would blame it on. Specifically because in the games where we didn't make those silly mistakes, we were able to win (like the Lakers game, Magic, etc.)
It's also worth noting that we lost a number of games to below average teams because of those same mistakes, so it's not entirely an issue of the Lakers "flipping the switch". We choked those games away by turning the ball over, taking bad shots, committing stupid fouls, missing free throws, etc. But when you look at a game like yesterday's, when we surrendered 16 points from our 21 point lead, we regrouped, pushed the lead back out, and were able to put it away in the 4th quarter. We had a lead the whole time, but the game was won in the 4th quarter. That's a sign of growth by this team.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
Of course it matters. If you’re consistently losing close games, it’s a habit. It reflects something wrong with the team. In contrast, a good team occasionally blowing a close one, is a fluke. No one wins them all.
Technically, that is why. My point is that that’s what other team’s were banking on The Kings doing.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
It seems like what you just came up with proves the statement so I don't understand your opinion.
ParniValjak
All-Star
Westphal has settled on the rotation but if you remember last year, he did the same thing.
The problem with Westphal is that he uses half the season playing musical chairs with starting line ups and rotations and after the all-star break settles on a rotation that many of us were calling from day 1. The problem with his approach is that team doesn't build chemistry, players are confused about their roles and that shows on the court. Westphal just can't help himself when he gets new players. He just loves to experiment which is fine in the pre-season games but when the real stuff starts, set a rotation and go from there.
If he is the coach next year, he will start doing the same thing, pee farting around with line ups and rotations trying to play will all the new toys he got during the summer (read new players) only to yet again confuse his team, frustrate players and fans with his inability to pick a rotation and stick to it. This team needs stability, repetition and time and I am not sure Westphal can provide that.
The only thing wrong here is youth, not bad habits. If anything, bad habits are a manifestation of youth's inconsistency. Are the Kings a young team? Absolutely. Are they a bad team? Only if you think about it in terms of wins and losses, which is not really what the OP was going for, but rather that the close games indicate improvement, and in the last few games, the team has actually closed out the end of games as well, playing for "all 48 minutes" as good teams tend to do. This team is on an upward trajectory.
Try not to get lost in the minutiae of what constitutes "close games" - it's not about minutes, but you know how the game goes. There have been times (especially early on) where the Kings weren't even in the game after the 1st quarter. This is not what we're talking about here. We all know what close games look like. Teams don't game plan vs. the Kings thinking "oh, they're going to blow it eventually - let's let them do their thing." That's absurd.
Sac.1989
Starter
Ive heard a few basketball pundits say over 10 points and its the players under 10 points and its the coaching. Not that im against PW, just thought id throw it out there. 9 points and the fact that as Brick says its more often us leading then finding a way to lose it and its goota be a bit of both
Glenn
Hall of Famer
Probably true. Maybe if we get the near all star quality SF he won't have any options except with how he manipulates the bench. Could he be so stupid as to not start Reke, Marcus, DeMarcus, Dally, and this new spectacular SF? This is what happens when you hire a guy who comes begging and will accept a small salary.
ParniValjak
All-Star
Could he be that stupid?! IMHO yes!
Just take a look at how JT's role has changed from last season to this point. Its been a rollercoaster from starter at C/PF to small forward, to reserve SF, to DNP-CD, to starter, to bench player with sporadic minutes, to 1st big off the bench!
The guy can't help himself. He loves the new toys he gets every year and want to experiment all sorts of rotations he can think off.
For 2 years in a row he has played musical chairs with rotations even after having a pretty obvious group of starters on the team.
jalfa
Starter
Sorry, must've misread your post then. To me, it sounded like you were saying coaching isn't all that relevant players matter far more. Going back it could've of course as easily been "coaches only really matter if they are great". My fault for not reading close enough (or yours for not being clear enough
).
Kingster
Hall of Famer
Turnovers. I said before the season began that the success of the season would depend on turnovers. Same thing holds true for next season. Heck, just cut turnovers by 25% and this team's record will be quite a bit better. Many of those close games will then be won. The first step for this young team is to stop beating themselves. As Thornton becomes more comfortable in the offense, as Tyreke and Cousins mature, as hopefully the Kings add a quick on quick guard in the backcourt, this team will do better in the turnover area. Also, having a 3 who is competent wouldn't hurt either. The turnover situation isn't so much a function of coaching as it is of talent (or lack thereof) and experience, although allowing Cousins to play guard and bring the ball up the court doesn't help matters.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
Sorry, must've misread your post then. To me, it sounded like you were saying coaching isn't all that relevant players matter far more. Going back it could've of course as easily been "coaches only really matter if they are great". My fault for not reading close enough (or yours for not being clear enough
Gee, a resolution to a misunderstanding without muss, fuss, or posturing. I thought those stats were very interesting. Now we need one of those coaches who have won. "Coaches only matter if they are great or suck."
Section 101
All-Star
Gee, a resolution to a misunderstanding without muss, fuss, or posturing. I thought those stats were very interesting. Now we need one of those coaches who have won. "Coaches only matter if they are great or suck."
So a coach who had your team in the playoffs 8 years in a row, had been in the playoffs (and winning record) 14 of 16 years coaching and been to the finals twice is one you let walk away?
Amory
Bench
IMO, the close loses make me really really happy. For a couple reasons:
1 - We have the lowest payroll in the league.
2 - We have no horrible contracts.
3 - We have a high draft pick.
4 - We have a lot of free money next year.
All of this and we have been winning a lot of games recently. IMO, we add a nice draft pick, resign some players and spend a decent amount of money of a free agent and we have an awesome team.
This off season is going to be exciting!
1 - We have the lowest payroll in the league.
2 - We have no horrible contracts.
3 - We have a high draft pick.
4 - We have a lot of free money next year.
All of this and we have been winning a lot of games recently. IMO, we add a nice draft pick, resign some players and spend a decent amount of money of a free agent and we have an awesome team.
This off season is going to be exciting!
If you enjoy protracted labor debates, then absolutely. Otherwise, this offseason is going to be incredibly painful. Unless you absolutely love baseball.
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
I think this thread should of stated how many games the Kings lost under 3 points or something in that range. Losing a game by 9 is not exactly close, it could be if it was a two point game and they kept fouling and fouling some more to just rack up points. Other than that, the Kings have clearly lost their fair share of close ones and that's fine. They are learning and they will turn the corner sooner rather than later. It would also help to run some good effective plays down the stretch, not just dribble out the clock to 10 seconds and then make a move. Cough.
My point with this post is that this is a young team, and for me, the fact that they are losing games that they had the opportunity to win shows that there is in fact something there to be positive about. Lately they have been winning these games. A game lost by 9 points or less is a game that a team is in and has a chance to win. That is potentially only 3 possessions.
