[Game] Kings v. Clippers - Thursday, Jan. 11 - 7 PT

What are you kidding? The Clips were on a back-to-back and lost DeAndre and put up 100 points against us after three quarters. Pathetic! What was encouraging was play of Bogdan but we knew the guy was really really good, so the encouraging aspect was not specific to this game. Fox seems to be picking up his defensive intensity and anticipation lately. So there's that.

I take exception to your other points but don't have time to address them. Let's just say when an opponent comes in after spending a lot of energy beating the Warriors less than 24 hours ago, loses one of their best players and proceeds to light up the Kings with 100 points through three quarters, I don't see a lot of reason shower the Kings with compliments. It was a sporadic disjointed catch-up performance against a highly vulnerable opponent.
The Kings lost this game in the first and second quarters. Falling behind by 12 at the half and then outscoring the Clippers 55 to 49 in the second half. Allowing Harrel to score 16 in the 2nd quarter and Williams 15 also in the 2nd quarter caused the Kings own scoring of 39 points in the 2nd quarter not to matter. That said the Kings had tied the game near the end and could have won if a couple more shots went in:

 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
Skal was so horrible to watch... it's the games like these that make me really question him as a basketball player.
It's been the same story with Skal time and time again, he shows you just enough flashes of potential to make you think he could be an All-Star down the line and then spends the remaining 90% of his time displaying the dexterity of a drunk rhino and looking like he's never seen a game of basketball before.
 
What I noticed at UK and now with the Kings, is that Skal just does not seem to have a feel for structured play. When he is on the floor, he looks like he is playing in a playground pick-up game. I have seen some improvement, so maybe he will eventually get it. People see the smooth shooting mechanics, great elevation on his jump shot, really nice pull up jumper, that high release point, that is hard for defenders to contest, but they overlook his other weaknesses. Kings have so many young players to develop, they can't just throw Skal out there 35 minutes a game hoping he will figure it out (He would probably foul out before he reached the 35 minutes). When you are trying to teach and develop young players, it helps if the team on the floor is able to execute the set plays and defensive rotations. The veterans are supposed to provide that stability, but the young guys have to be able to at least have some semblance of structured play, also. I'm not down on Skal, I can see his potential, too, but I think it is going to require patience, and that the Kings are going to have to bring him along slowly (as they are doing). I am just not in the throw them out there and let them run wild until they figure it out camp. Just my opinions, not saying that I am any kind of expert on player development (although I do have some experience mentoring younger employees at work).
 
I'm not down on Skal, I can see his potential, too, but I think it is going to require patience, and that the Kings are going to have to bring him along slowly (as they are doing). I am just not in the throw them out there and let them run wild until they figure it out
David Griffin was on NBA radio the other day talking about the Bulls Knicks double OT game. He talked about how even though Dunn was 4-18 he gave credit to Coach Hoiberg for sticking with Dunn and continuing to go to him. He said something like the only way Dunn is going to learn is with playing time and in game situations. He said you can recreate that in practice.

So what's best for your players give them playing time and let them play through their mistakes or the make them earn it school of thought? Whatever the Bulls are doing it's seems to be working.

Just and interesting comment from a former GM regarding development
 
Nothing to be upset about here, that was a really encouraging game. Everybody played well for stretches (yes, even Skal despite the bad second half showing and Temple despite the lack of scoring). If anything this game was a great example of why you can never have too many playmakers. Hill, Temple, Fox, and Bogie were all getting their lob on mostly to the benefit of WCS who was on the receiving end on almost all of them. The shots didn't always fall but the ball was moving and everybody was staying involved. Fox is still shaky with the jumper but a couple of those long ones rattled in and out and he was very active defensively. This is the first game I've watched in awhile and I was pleasantly surprised!

Also, I don't understand the George Hill hate around here at all. Maybe I got lucky and this was his best game of the season but he's also leading the entire league in 3pt% (well, maybe not anymore after going 1 for 6...) and I rarely see him take a bad shot. Z-Bo led the team in shot attempts again but they were all within the flow of the offense. In fact, I think I learned something from watching this game. Defenders will bear down and try to keep you away from the basket if you catch the ball in the post but Zach and Kosta were able to catch the ball in very good position to score by getting an extra step on their defender when the guards were swinging the ball and the defense was rotating. Even better, when they did receive the ball (again credit the guards here for anticipating the play) it was with their momentum already going toward the basket not standing flat-footed with a defender digging in.

Just about everything was working for us offensively, the game was lost on the other end. Lou Williams is tough for anyone to stop coming off of screens (which GS found out last night) but Montrezl Harrell is a 6'8" PF and we just let him bully his way to 25 points on 11-12 shooting. Zach and Kosta aren't fast enough to stay between him and the basket which is understandable. They're vets who aren't part of the long-term plan here anyway but Willie and Skal have got to find a way to get some lower body leverage eventually or we're in big trouble defensively with that frontcourt tandem. As slippery as they are in space on the offensive end, they're equally poor at playing into contact and bodying guys up on defense. Skal in particular should have had about 5 or 6 more boards in this game if he paid better attention to his positioning and developed more of an edge and the same could be said about his defensive efforts in general.

But the good news is there's usable talent here and I do think Joerger is getting the best of what we currently have. Skal and Fox are a couple years away from really getting it I think but both have the physical tools to be successful. Buddy and Bogie are already difference makers with their scoring ability and both of them moved the ball well today too. Willie is going to have nights where his ability to cut to the basket and finish plays is a serious weapon and we can build around that by putting even more playmakers on the floor. I don't think Fox is going to be the kind of ball-dominant lead guard you have to plan your roster around and that's a good thing. He's most effective pushing the pace or catching defenders off balance and cutting to the basket and that allows playmaking duties to be more equally weighted. As for weaknesses... we're badly in need of some muscle in the frontcourt. Hopefully we got some of that when Harry Giles works his way into the rotation next year. It's hard to know what we have in Skal right now. He's going to be a bench guy for awhile and we'll see if he's able to build his game into a bigger role or not. It wouldn't hurt to get a wing who can defend the 2, 3 and 4 positions as well. Fox, Hield, and Bogie are all a little small to be mixing it up against bigger wings and hybrid forwards and there's nobody on the bench who fills that role right now either.

Maybe I should watch a few more games. Sure the team is bad but they're not hopelessly bad, they're just bad enough to lose and that's okay when you're starting over with a roster full of kids all trying to find a new identity together.
This is an example of an even handed analysis of the game and players without having to sensationalize every veteran AND head coach as inept.
 
David Griffin was on NBA radio the other day talking about the Bulls Knicks double OT game. He talked about how even though Dunn was 4-18 he gave credit to Coach Hoiberg for sticking with Dunn and continuing to go to him. He said something like the only way Dunn is going to learn is with playing time and in game situations. He said you can recreate that in practice.

So what's best for your players give them playing time and let them play through their mistakes or the make them earn it school of thought? Whatever the Bulls are doing it's seems to be working.

Just and interesting comment from a former GM regarding development
I would counter that there are many ways to develop players.....unless David Griffin is the end all, know all on the subject. Why didnt Cleveland play Anthony Bennett more then if that is his philosophy?
 
Bogie was really good yesterday. I hope he keeps up his aggressive scoring mentality. That free throw line shot he has is money.

Hield was out there making some plays even though his shot wasn't falling. He has pretty good vision when passing in the paint.

Poor Koufos. Weird game where he was better on offense than defense (although it was a mismatch). Felt so bad for the guy at the end.

Fox was bad at everything last night but if he's going to brick his 3's, I'd rather them be of the in and out variety.

Oh and I don't think there are too many ball handlers. If we wind up with Doncic and we run a Fox/Bogie/Doncic lineup, Fox won't fit if he can't shoot the ball and Doncic and/or Bogie wind up being better playmakers than him. If Fox's shot becomes steady, now you have a dangerous lineup with 3 guys that can make something happen at any point during an offensive set. Even if it breaks down and they're in emergency mode with a few seconds left on the shot clock. There's no such thing as having too many ball handlers if they're all able to shoot.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
Remember, he's on a two-way contract and can only spend a total of 45 days actually with the Kings. They may be holding him in reserve just in case they have to call him up.
I don't understand why they don't make a trade in order get him a place on the big-boy roster.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
http://www.nba.com/kings/news/frank-mason-iii-injury-update-011118

They did an MRI yesterday and found that Mason tore his plantar fascia. So, the push back wasn't completely arbitrary. My presumption is they didn't think there was a tear, but he didn't heal quickly enough so finally they did the MRI and caught the tear.

Giles is not currently dealing with an active injury but rather rehab so it's obviously not the same situation. Also, I'm not sure I've seen any comments from the Kings that Giles *would* be back in January, just that he wouldn't be back before then. Until I hear further, Giles' timetable is completely up in the air in my mind, and the not-before-Jan.-13th number means nothing at all.
Thanks for the useful distinction.
 
David Griffin was on NBA radio the other day talking about the Bulls Knicks double OT game. He talked about how even though Dunn was 4-18 he gave credit to Coach Hoiberg for sticking with Dunn and continuing to go to him. He said something like the only way Dunn is going to learn is with playing time and in game situations. He said you can recreate that in practice.

So what's best for your players give them playing time and let them play through their mistakes or the make them earn it school of thought? Whatever the Bulls are doing it's seems to be working.

Just and interesting comment from a former GM regarding development
David Griffin is someone we should seriously be looking id say.
 
David Griffin was on NBA radio the other day talking about the Bulls Knicks double OT game. He talked about how even though Dunn was 4-18 he gave credit to Coach Hoiberg for sticking with Dunn and continuing to go to him. He said something like the only way Dunn is going to learn is with playing time and in game situations. He said you can recreate that in practice.

So what's best for your players give them playing time and let them play through their mistakes or the make them earn it school of thought? Whatever the Bulls are doing it's seems to be working.

Just and interesting comment from a former GM regarding development
The thing with the Kings is that we are trying to develop 9 guys at once - evaluate the keepers and ship the rest out before they lose all value. Which is why the odd rotations and other stuff are so glaring. If it was one or two guys in question we're probably looking at a different story.
 

Larry89

Disgruntled Kings Fan
Why is skal so trash?
He has an awkward body for the NBA. Too tall and slow to guard 3's and alot of 4's, too small to play center. His lateral movement and speed is quite slow, he needs better core strength and legs, he kind of has a KAT body going on where KAT's upper body tends to imbalance with his lower body making him a poor defender, but also being overall just smaller and weaker.

He really needs to work on his body and his overall toughness
 
The thing with the Kings is that we are trying to develop 9 guys at once - evaluate the keepers and ship the rest out before they lose all value. Which is why the odd rotations and other stuff are so glaring. If it was one or two guys in question we're probably looking at a different story.
This is a significant point. Joerger has been clear that he doesn't think it's good for the development of the young guys to play them all together. Unfortunately, that complicates things if you also think the young guys develop better if they play significant minutes. You seemingly can't do both things at the same time, at least for all them.
 
The Kings give up 72 points at the half to a team with a losing record, and 100 points in 3 quarters.
Then they work hard and get back in to lose at the end.
I thought Kufous played a very impressive game except for that telegraphed pass at the end.
 
It's all about the long game. Sure if this season actually mattered than losing to a hobbled Clippers team on a road back-to-back is a little embarrassing but it so clearly doesn't matter so the process is all I care about, not the end result. Ultimately I think we've got more bench players here than starters but they're good bench players. And I like seeing them play off each other instead of guys taking turns isolating and creating for themselves. For as talented as we were with Isaiah, Rudy, and DeMarcus all clicking at once a few years ago that team was still brutal to watch because it was all isolation plays for 48 minutes. Is the defense worrying? Not really. Fox can defend well enough to start. Buddy and Bogie are good enough to be rotation guys. Skal needs to get a lot better but you can already see him bulking up and gaining confidence. Either he'll get it eventually and we've got a solid multi-dimensional big man who can block shots, rebound, and shoot from outside or he won't and we've got one more spot to fill. Willie is a mixed bag but he's a rotational quality player already. And the rest will all be gonso within 2 years so who cares what their weaknesses are? I really don't understand how anyone is asking for Joerger to be fired at this point. We have a young inexperienced team peppered with some mediocre vets and Coach has got them playing as a team. Sometimes I think people here just have insanely unrealistic expectations.
Your assessment would have more merit if the Kings didn't spend $40 million on free agents last summer.

This was a team that has (had) designs on being respectable, being competitive, being formidable, and they have pretty much failed on all counts to date.

The Kings have a historically bad point differential only masked by having an amazing point differential in crunch time.

Let's take emotion out of the analysis.

The Kings level of competitiveness as reflected in worst offensive efficiency (100.1 scored per 100 possessions) and worst defensive efficiency (110.1 allowed per 100 possessions) is historically bad.

No team has ever finished last in O and D.

The Kings level of competitiveness this season is consistent with a team that would have a record after 40 games of around 6-35 NOT 13-28.

And you say it is the fans who have insanely unrealistic expectations?!? I think expecting the team to be better than historically bad is not insanely unrealistic.

If the Kings had a value adding coach I think we would see a far more competitive and entertaining brand of basketball:
  • Brad Stevens
  • Rick Carlisle
  • Eric Spoelstra
  • Quin Snyder
These guys above are good to great coaches. Our coach is a smug lightweight with a mounting track record of dubious decisions.

The only reason the Kings are NOT 6-35 like I said is the clutch play in the crunch time. So kudos to them for that but it does tend to mask the collective ineptitude.

When there was the thread about competing for the playoffs, I was dismissive though created fantastical scenario under which the team would compete for the 8th seed.

In summary of that fantasy, the Kings needed Boggy, Buddy and Z-Bud to become high usage leaders with 15-20 PPG and more to compensate for the defensive shortcoming with Z-Bud playing prominent role.

Well, Z-Bud was not going to continue to play like he was (60% TS 20+ PPG), Buddy is not a featured player due to coach suppression and bias. Only Boggy has held up his end of the hypothetical bargain.

So then you may ask who or what prevents realization of this dream scenario? It was rooted in fanciful premise the coach was fatefully married to Z-Bo yet would identify his best perimeter scoring weapon (Buddy) and feature him and have faith in his takeover ability. He would cut Temple's minutes and give those minutes to Buddy to get his shot attempts up. He would live with the cold streaks with the faith and confidence the hot streaks would come.

This coach cuts his players off at the knees before allowing them to be great. This coach has had plenty of opportunity and time to implement his best lineups and combinations and play sets to make a difference quantitatively and qualitatively. But he has added NO value to the modest assets at his disposal. None.

Last night he inserted Z-Bo into the game with the guys making a run closing score 66-60. Skal missed a 15 footer but then hustled to follow his own miss with a tip attempt. It was a great effort. He was reward for this effort by having a seat on the bench a deference to the star pupil. The deficit swelled to double digits by halftime.

This is the kind of bullcrap that the majority of fans like myself take exception to. He's not coaching the game. He's coaching his bias. If he was a more clear thinker with an intuitive feel for flow and time and situation, without the smugness that masks his insecurity, the whole team would be better off. This may NOT be reflected in our total wins, but it would be reflected in our point differential and number of lopsided losses. None of this unreasonable expectation. It is common sense.

It is debatable the degree of culpability among players and coach for another lost season, and shaping up to date as the LEAST competitive season in team history. But it is NOT debatable the fans have the right to expect more than a virtual crap Show, aka the Joerger Experience, that long suffering fans have bear witness to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing with the Kings is that we are trying to develop 9 guys at once - evaluate the keepers and ship the rest out before they lose all value. Which is why the odd rotations and other stuff are so glaring. If it was one or two guys in question we're probably looking at a different story.
I think this is lost on many comparing us to other versions of a rebuild.
 

Capt. Factorial

Cantry Member
Staff member
The Kings level of competitiveness as reflected in worst offensive efficiency (100.1 scored per 100 possessions) and worst defensive efficiency (110.1 allowed per 100 possessions) is historically bad.

No team has ever finished last in O and D.

The Kings level of competitiveness this season is consistent with a team that would have a record after 40 games of around 6-35 NOT 13-28.
You keep saying this, but it's not true. I'll quote myself from the Lakers game thread:

If a single example (I didn't look for any more) will disprove the rule, the 1992-1993 Dallas Mavericks were last in ORTG (99.5, 4.1 points below the next worst team) and last in DRTG (114.7, 2.9 points above the next worst team). This year the Kings have an ORTG of 102.6 (0.7 points below the next worst team) and a DRTG of 111.8 (0.3 points above the next worst team).

Of course, one would note that the Kings margin of victory (MOV) this year is -8.65, which is bad, but mild compared to those '92-'93 Mavs who had a MOV of -15.2! In fact, if we look just from 1990 (arbitrary year giving us almost 30 years of coverage) forward, there have been 35 teams who finished with a worse MOV than the Kings have right now. Interestingly, none of those 35 teams even came close to a .300 record, while the Kings right now are at .325. And if you look at the 28 other teams in that same timespan with a MOV of between -7.0 and -8.65, only 4 of them were better than .300 and only one of them had a better record than the Kings.

This is not to say that we are good - far from it. But we don't really quite live in that "historically bad, never before seen terribleness" realm. And our overall results, oddly, are quite a bit better than our MOV suggests, which is probably due to our numbers being skewed by a couple of really bad blowouts (e.g. Atlanta).
Additionally, according to Pythagorean predictions, the Kings are playing at what would be a 10-31 record, not a 6-35 record. (All numbers taken from BBRef, Kings ORTG and DRTG obviously may have changed a small amount since the quoted post).

The bottom line is that we are bad, but NOT historically bad as you keep saying.
 
Your assessment would have more merit if the Kings didn't spend $40 million on free agents last summer.

This was a team that has (had) designs on being respectable, being competitive, being formidable, and they have pretty much failed on all counts to date.
This is a team reliant overwhelmingly on players on their first contracts, with no pick in 2019 and a front loaded draft in 2018. I realize that some people go into every season with lofty expectations, but to think we were doing anything more than talent evaluation and playing to keep ourselves in the top pick race this season was just a failure to read the tea leaves. There's a reason Joerger went and got Joerger guys, and its not so he could ride them to death while the young guys wither, it's so he could evaluate the raw talent in terms of his overall vision 2-3 seasons from now.
 
Your assessment would have more merit if the Kings didn't spend $40 million on free agents last summer.

This was a team that has (had) designs on being respectable, being competitive, being formidable, and they have pretty much failed on all counts to date.

The Kings have a historically bad point differential only masked by having an amazing point differential in crunch time.

Let's take emotion out of the analysis.

The Kings level of competitiveness as reflected in worst offensive efficiency (100.1 scored per 100 possessions) and worst defensive efficiency (110.1 allowed per 100 possessions) is historically bad.

No team has ever finished last in O and D.

The Kings level of competitiveness this season is consistent with a team that would have a record after 40 games of around 6-35 NOT 13-28.

And you say it is the fans who have insanely unrealistic expectations?!? I think expecting the team to be better than historically bad is not insanely unrealistic.

If the Kings had a value adding coach I think we would see a far more competitive and entertaining brand of basketball:
  • Brad Stevens
  • Rick Carlisle
  • Eric Spoelstra
  • Quin Snyder
These guys above are good to great coaches. Our coach is a smug lightweight with a mounting track record of dubious decisions.

The only reason the Kings are NOT 6-35 like I said is the clutch play in the crunch time. So kudos to them for that but it does tend to mask the collective ineptitude.

When there was the thread about competing for the playoffs, I was dismissive though created fantastical scenario under which the team would compete for the 8th seed.

In summary of that fantasy, the Kings needed Boggy, Buddy and Z-Bud to become high usage leaders with 15-20 PPG and more to compensate for the defensive shortcoming with Z-Bud playing prominent role.

Well, Z-Bud was not going to continue to play like he was (60% TS 20+ PPG), Buddy is not a featured player due to coach suppression and bias. Only Boggy has held up his end of the hypothetical bargain.

So then you may ask who or what prevents realization of this dream scenario? It was rooted in fanciful premise the coach was fatefully married to Z-Bo yet would identify his best perimeter scoring weapon (Buddy) and feature him and have faith in his takeover ability. He would cut Temple's minutes and give those minutes to Buddy to get his shot attempts up. He would live with the cold streaks with the faith and confidence the hot streaks would come.

This coach cuts his players off at the knees before allowing them to be great. This coach has had plenty of opportunity and time to implement his best lineups and combinations and play sets to make a difference quantitatively and qualitatively. But he has added NO value to the modest assets at his disposal. None.

Last night he inserted Z-Bo into the game with the guys making a run closing score 66-60. Skal missed a 15 footer but then hustled to follow his own miss with a tip attempt. It was a great effort. He was reward for this effort by having a seat on the bench a deference to the star pupil. The deficit swelled to double digits by halftime.

This is the kind of bullpoopoo that the majority of fans like myself take exception to. He's not coaching the game. He's coaching his bias. If he was a more clear thinker with an intuitive feel for flow and time and situation, without the smugness that masks his insecurity, the whole team would be better off. This may NOT be reflected in our total wins, but it would be reflected in our point differential and number of lopsided losses. None of this unreasonable expectation. It is common sense.

It is debatable the degree of culpability among players and coach for another lost season, and shaping up to date as the LEAST competitive season in team history. But it is NOT debatable the fans have the right to expect more than a virtual poopoo Show, aka the Joerger Experience, that long suffering fans have bear witness to.
See this is all context though. I was just commenting on the game. And it was a fun game! If you hadn't have been so worried about everything you think Coach Joerger is doing wrong you might have noticed that he played 9 players and 8 of them either scored in double-digits or came very close. Everybody is playing and everybody is contributing and that's the surest sign there is of a coach who's doing his job effectively.

I'm not thrilled that the front office doubled down on veterans in a season that we absolutely have to tank, but it's not up to me. At least they were veterans that make sense as mentors for Fox (Hill) and Giles (ZBo --- yeah I know that using the word mentor here for Randolph is terrifying, but let's just focus on basketball skill). I also don't see the point of harping on about things that I have no control over. Maybe I did at one point but it's been a decade plus of this. I don't care anymore. We're going to sign whoever we're going to sign. We're going to draft whoever we're going to draft. Hopefully those guys find a way to win together. The roster we have this year has a cap of about 30 wins max which is nowhere even close to the playoffs. This is what I mean by insanely unrealistic expectations. I never even considered the possibility of playoffs this season. If you actually indulged that fantasy and that's why you're upset, that's on you. So what if we end up 20-62 or something close? There's a huge talent void now that "you-know-who" is gone and we should all know by now that there's only one way we're going to replace a talent like that.

As for the coaching effort, I really think you're getting all worked up over nothing. Skal got some good minutes in the first half and made some nice plays. That's good for his confidence. I think he went to the bench feeling good about himself. He couldn't get into a rhythm in the second half but that doesn't mean his confidence was shattered by mean ol' Dave Joerger replacing him with ZBo too soon (I know you didn't say this... but it's been implied by other people in other threads). He was almost making good plays in the second half and that's how it goes sometimes with young guys. You may be right that he's not coaching to the game but so what? I wouldn't be either. His job right now is to coach the big picture. Give the kids something to work on, give them some time to work on it in a game, and then pull them out and talk to them about what worked and didn't work. Remember that a big part of his job is taking place in the film room, in the lockerroom, and in the practice gym where we don't get to see what he's doing.

Coach Joerger wasn't my first choice either. I wanted Nate McMillan or Mike Woodson -- not flashy coaches by any means but veteran coaches with experience coaching a style of basketball that I think is effective. Continuity is more important to me then waiting for the perfect coach though. Now that we have Joerger we need to give him time to develop the program. That takes more than the year and a half that Vivek gave Mike Malone. Goerge Karl had to go for other reasons and I'm not even going to get into everything else that happened before Malone got here. But I think the point has been made already that changing coaches every year is bad for an organization. Joerger might not be a future hall of fame coach but he's certainly not terrible. If you want to pick apart every decision he's ever made, well, you could probably find enough reasons to fire every coach in the league. Nobody is going to make the same decisions you would have made 100% of the time. Coaches earn respect by getting results and I'm just saying that we need to give this coach enough time to actually build something before criticizing him for not being able to build something.

Also, chill out a bit. :) It's just basketball.
 
You keep saying this, but it's not true. I'll quote myself from the Lakers game thread:



Additionally, according to Pythagorean predictions, the Kings are playing at what would be a 10-31 record, not a 6-35 record. (All numbers taken from BBRef, Kings ORTG and DRTG obviously may have changed a small amount since the quoted post).

The bottom line is that we are bad, but NOT historically bad as you keep saying.
I love a good debate but I am not interested in debating you.