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

[VF21]

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.

Thank you! Good to see your analysis, since I know you can be very critical when needs be. I think you said it all in your last sentence. They are bad, but they're not "hopelessly bad".

 

[VF21]

I don't understand why they don't make a trade in order get him a place on the big-boy roster.

If I were forced to hazard a guess, I'd say it's because they don't need to lock him into the big-boy roster right now. Having him on the 2-way keeps him in our stable until the dust settles and they get a better handle on who is going to stay and who's going to be heading out going forward.

 

[JCTNKINGFAN]

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.

A voice of reason

 

[sactowndog]

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).

Skal just needs to play more games. I don’t know if they have VR for basketball but if not Skal needs it. He more than anyone would benefit from playing in Reno.

 

[sactowndog]

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 don’t think a one size fits all approach. If a player has a high basketball IQ then being on the floor and learning is helpful. If the player has a lower IQ like Skal playing in spurts and teaching off it may be more effective.

One problem with the Kings is they don’t have a lot of high IQ guys on the team.

 

[sactowndog]

This is a Jekyll and Hyde team. They are capable of great play and terrible play in the same game.

Isn’t that typical of rookies and first year players?

 

[ppine]

Maybe. The veterans do the same thing. Some of the Kings most serious problems are mental.
Some players can't get motivated very well. Maybe they need to find another line of work.

 

[kingsboi]

Maybe. The veterans do the same thing. Some of the Kings most serious problems are mental.
Some players can't get motivated very well. Maybe they need to find another line of work.

Maybe they need another team instead?

 

[ppine]

The Kings are way too complacent. They accept defeat easily. They need a team shrink.

 

[Kingster]

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.

I agree with your "good news" paragraph, but the George Hill paragraph is absolutely dumbfounding. If you don't know why I can't stand the guy, then you just haven't been watching him and what he does or not do on the floor. The 3 pt shooting stat is incredibly deceiving. He must be better than Lou Williams. The Clipps should make that trade. Nope, that certainly won't happen. How many 3 pointers has this guy even taken? The guy is obviously not invested into being with the Kings - no fire, no aggression, going through the motions, playing by the book and not taking the game personally, just absent without leave for 90% of the season. I would only hope that some other GM would look at Hill's 3 point percentage and give the Kings something of value his shooting expertise. The guy has been an absolute downer and when you have a young team going through difficult times the last thing you want on the roster is a vet downer who doesn't want to be in the foxhole with you.

 

[hrdboild]

I agree with your "good news" paragraph, but the George Hill paragraph is absolutely dumbfounding. If you don't know why I can't stand the guy, then you just haven't been watching him and what he does or not do on the floor. The 3 pt shooting stat is incredibly deceiving. He must be better than Lou Williams. The Clipps should make that trade. Nope, that certainly won't happen. How many 3 pointers has this guy even taken? The guy is obviously not invested into being with the Kings - no fire, no aggression, going through the motions, playing by the book and not taking the game personally, just absent without leave for 90% of the season. I would only hope that some other GM would look at Hill's 3 point percentage and give the Kings something of value his shooting expertise. The guy has been an absolute downer and when you have a young team going through difficult times the last thing you want on the roster is a vet downer who doesn't want to be in the foxhole with you.

As I've said before, I haven't really been watching games this season. I've watched almost every terrible game for the last 10 years and decided I needed a break this year. I happened to tune in for this game and Hill played very well. I get that he hasn't lived up to expectations, but the comments I've read here are way over the top as if he's actively sabotaging games. How much of this is just about his salary? Or is it frustration that De'Aaron Fox hasn't immediately lit the league on fire? Or maybe people didn't know what we were getting with George Hill in the first place? This is a guy who came into the league in Popovich's system. He plays a simple, disciplined veteran game -- moves the ball quickly, takes smart shots, doesn't gamble on defense. Nothing about his game is flashy or exciting. Is he just going through the motions? Have off-court issues been too much of a distraction? I don't really know but you're laying the hyperbole on pretty thick just in your response to my comments and that's what doesn't make sense to me.

Obviously he's not playing as well as Lou Williams who could be an All-Star this year, that doesn't mean he's a net negative. Surely there's some middle ground here.

 

[hrdboild]

I also find it puzzling that fans of this team -- with everything we've been through from the Maloofs active sabotage, the multi year relocation saga, the disastrous Pete and Chris era, Vivek's "jazz band" inanity and so on would turn up their noses at steady journeyman players because they lack apparent passion for the game. The emotional ups and downs have been a big part of the problem. We could stand to have a little lot more even-tempered professionalism on the court to balance out the erratic antics of all these young kids.

I also think the only real strength of our team this season (last place in offensive and defensive efficiency) has been three point shooting where we ranked 4th in the league last I checked and Hill hasn't just been good in that regard, he's been great. He's not a volume shooter so that elite shooting percentage isn't impacting the game as much as a guy like Steph Curry who's making 3 times as many shots at a slightly lower percentage but would it kill you to give just a wee bit of credit where it's due?

I mean I don't really care that much, I just read through the board every now and then and the George Hill disdain doesn't accord with what I saw so I just felt it warranted a mention. Perhaps if I'd watched more games I would understand.

 

[mac]

I also find it puzzling that fans of this team -- with everything we've been through from the Maloofs active sabotage, the multi year relocation saga, the disastrous Pete and Chris era, Vivek's "jazz band" inanity and so on would turn up their noses at steady journeyman players because they lack apparent passion for the game. The emotional ups and downs have been a big part of the problem. We could stand to have a little lot more even-tempered professionalism on the court to balance out the erratic antics of all these young kids.

I also think the only real strength of our team this season (last place in offensive and defensive efficiency) has been three point shooting where we ranked 4th in the league last I checked and Hill hasn't just been good in that regard, he's been great. He's not a volume shooter so that elite shooting percentage isn't impacting the game as much as a guy like Steph Curry who's making 3 times as many shots at a slightly lower percentage but would it kill you to give just a wee bit of credit where it's due?

I mean I don't really care that much, I just read through the board every now and then and the George Hill disdain doesn't accord with what I saw so I just felt it warranted a mention. Perhaps if I'd watched more games I would understand.

Yes, you should watch more games.

 

[King Baller]

I also find it puzzling that fans of this team -- with everything we've been through from the Maloofs active sabotage, the multi year relocation saga, the disastrous Pete and Chris era, Vivek's "jazz band" inanity and so on would turn up their noses at steady journeyman players because they lack apparent passion for the game. The emotional ups and downs have been a big part of the problem. We could stand to have a little lot more even-tempered professionalism on the court to balance out the erratic antics of all these young kids.

I also think the only real strength of our team this season (last place in offensive and defensive efficiency) has been three point shooting where we ranked 4th in the league last I checked and Hill hasn't just been good in that regard, he's been great. He's not a volume shooter so that elite shooting percentage isn't impacting the game as much as a guy like Steph Curry who's making 3 times as many shots at a slightly lower percentage but would it kill you to give just a wee bit of credit where it's due?

I mean I don't really care that much, I just read through the board every now and then and the George Hill disdain doesn't accord with what I saw so I just felt it warranted a mention. Perhaps if I'd watched more games I would understand.

Teams are defending the Kings at the 3 point line. Still I think the focus of the Kings offense should be launching 3's. Or as Brick used to like to say "Chuck and duck"

 

[hrdboild]

Yes, you should watch more games.

Should I though? If it's so I can understand why people are mad at George Hill and Dave Joerger I'll pass. If it's because the team is young and pretty bad but still fun to watch that could be worth it. Maybe. I'm kindof tired of watching my teams lose though. It's been a long stretch of suck for the Kings, 49ers, and Oakland A's and the "wounds" are almost entirely self-inflicted. At this point even morbid curiosity is losing its appeal.

 

[dude12]

Should I though? If it's so I can understand why people are mad at George Hill and Dave Joerger I'll pass. If it's because the team is young and pretty bad but still fun to watch that could be worth it. Maybe. I'm kindof tired of watching my teams lose though. It's been a long stretch of suck for the Kings, 49ers, and Oakland A's and the "wounds" are almost entirely self-inflicted. At this point even morbid curiosity is losing its appeal.

Keyboard coaches are convinced that Joerger is a bad coach, that our young guys should be performing at a higher level, that Vlade has crippled the franchise, that the vets are ruining the progress of the young guys, doom and gloom....or in other words, business as usual on the forum. The venom for Hill and Zbo and Joerger is of PDA level. I guess fanatics have to vent.

 

[ppine]

My interest level in the team is sliding. They play like they don;t care. That is the one thing I cannot tolerate in a sports team.

 

[fansinceday1]

My interest level in the team is sliding. They play like they don;t care. That is the one thing I cannot tolerate in a sports team.

I live 6 min from the arena. I've turned down free tickets 3 times already. Teams a drag to watch man. Sports is suppose to be entertaining and the games I'm watching on tv are not entertaining. At least when I'm at home I can get up and go do something constructive. If turning down free tix makes me a bad fan, so be it.

 

[ESP47]

Keyboard coaches are convinced that Joerger is a bad coach, that our young guys should be performing at a higher level, that Vlade has crippled the franchise, that the vets are ruining the progress of the young guys, doom and gloom....or in other words, business as usual on the forum. The venom for Hill and Zbo and Joerger is of PDA level. I guess fanatics have to vent.

How has sitting back and trusting everything the franchise has done been going for you for the last 11 years?

As far as us keyboard coaches....I've been saying all along that ZBo has been holding Fox back and just recently someone posted the stats and they proved exactly what some of us have been saying this whole time. Some of the criticism is unfounded and overboard but some of it is warranted and some of it is even correct.

 

[dude12]

How has sitting back and trusting everything the franchise has done been going for you for the last 11 years?

As far as us keyboard coaches....I've been saying all along that ZBo has been holding Fox back and just recently someone posted the stats and they proved exactly what some of us have been saying this whole time. Some of the criticism is unfounded and overboard but some of it is warranted and some of it is even correct.

I haven't trusted or been on board with everything the franchise has done. That's a complete error on your part with many members. I hated the Cousins trade but I don't vent about it every other effing post. Quite the contrary, I moved on and just accepted the process going forward. It's a 3 year process or so to get this dialed in but some would rather just crash and burn the place down. It's not for me.

 

[ESP47]

I haven't trusted or been on board with everything the franchise has done. That's a complete error on your part with many members. I hated the Cousins trade but I don't vent about it every other effing post. Quite the contrary, I moved on and just accepted the process going forward. It's a 3 year process or so to get this dialed in but some would rather just crash and burn the place down. It's not for me.

Fair enough.

 

[mac]

Should I though? If it's so I can understand why people are mad at George Hill and Dave Joerger I'll pass. If it's because the team is young and pretty bad but still fun to watch that could be worth it. Maybe. I'm kindof tired of watching my teams lose though. It's been a long stretch of suck for the Kings, 49ers, and Oakland A's and the "wounds" are almost entirely self-inflicted. At this point even morbid curiosity is losing its appeal.

It's the former. My point is that you shouldn't come here proclaiming to only watch one game where George Hill happened to play well and then pretend like the rest of the fan base apparently has issues. Put it this way, he was brought in to be a leader, mentor, and a steadying presence, and has failed on all fronts. He's had some good games, and seems to be playing better recently, but this is a 20MM starting PG giving you games of 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 points, sometimes coupled with only 3 assists or less. He's not making anybody around him better and often during the season has looked like he couldn't care less on the court. Given all this, it's no wonder why many would like him shipped out to give time to Mason and Fox, who have shown promise at times.

This team is bad and it has alot to do with coaching. Put it this way, Joerger has no better pedigree than Karl, and were it Karl doing these exact things and getting these results many would have called for his head.

 

[King Baller]

I think Joerger just needs to tell the fellas to launch more threes at this point. Run more plays with the 3 as an option. Hill, Heild, Frank, Bogdan and Skal need more good looks at the 3 IMO.

 

[VF21]

Should I though? If it's so I can understand why people are mad at George Hill and Dave Joerger I'll pass. If it's because the team is young and pretty bad but still fun to watch that could be worth it. Maybe. I'm kindof tired of watching my teams lose though. It's been a long stretch of suck for the Kings, 49ers, and Oakland A's and the "wounds" are almost entirely self-inflicted. At this point even morbid curiosity is losing its appeal.

That's why I watch.

 

[hrdboild]

It's the former. My point is that you shouldn't come here proclaiming to only watch one game where George Hill happened to play well and then pretend like the rest of the fan base apparently has issues. Put it this way, he was brought in to be a leader, mentor, and a steadying presence, and has failed on all fronts. He's had some good games, and seems to be playing better recently, but this is a 20MM starting PG giving you games of 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 points, sometimes coupled with only 3 assists or less. He's not making anybody around him better and often during the season has looked like he couldn't care less on the court. Given all this, it's no wonder why many would like him shipped out to give time to Mason and Fox, who have shown promise at times.

This team is bad and it has alot to do with coaching. Put it this way, Joerger has no better pedigree than Karl, and were it Karl doing these exact things and getting these results many would have called for his head.

I'm just tired of the nonsense, that's why I don't watch. If I occasionally pop in and watch a game I'm probably going to want to write about what I saw though. That's why we're here right? If George Hill was terrible I would have written about that. I don't think anyone else has issues either, but I do think certain folks could use a little bit of perspective adjustment. George Hill is playing pretty much how he's always played. It's made him a valuable player on 8 playoff teams in 9 years. No he's not a max contract guy. Yes that $20M salary is awfully big this year but it's not hurting the team --- that's money that had to be spent anyway. I've scanned boxscores and seen that he had a bad stretch early in the season which apparently has fixed his reputation as a bum and a malcontent for a lot of people but I'm actually glad George Hill isn't out there taking 25 shots per game trying to prove that he deserves his salary. That would be way more disruptive. And it's not why we signed him in the first place...

It all just speaks to a disconnect I think between what the team was actually doing this summer and how it was maybe presented. I don't know how it was presented because I'm pretty far removed from any Sacramento Kings related media. I usually end up watching the other team's broadcast and I'm not in Sacramento so I don't know what local reporters are saying. But I get the impression that some people expected a lot more out of this roster than 20-30 wins, a last place finish, and a top draft pick. A lot of money was spent on Zach Randolph, Vince Carter, and George Hill but all of them have 1 or 2 year deals (with the small exception of a $1M buyout for Hill which is only there to help his trade value). That wasn't "let's go for it" money it was a short-term investment so we weren't put into a position where we have to play rookies before they're ready. And to maybe get a trade asset down the road. And to maybe see if some of Popovich's magic pixie dust can indirectly make it to our young players. I kid, but it is actually a big deal that Goerge Hill has played with Hall of Fame players and coaches and played in playoff games with Pop and knows how that winning culture works. That's the biggest chunk of the $20M he's making just for that. And then you have to account for the "Sacramento" overpay because of the small market, poor reputation throughout the league currently, and no shot at the playoffs.

Yes it probably is a bit of a culture shock for a player who's made the playoffs in 8 out of 9 years of his career to come to a team that hasn't been there in over a decade. Even if he willingly signed up for it, it's going to feel different once you're on the court in a game that counts and realize just how bad your team is going to be for the next 6 months. Yes I'm now officially a George Hill apologist. Truth is, I have no idea what's going on with him-- what he's thinking, whether he's embraced the mentor ship role or not, whether he even has interesting things to say to the young players or not. But I do know it's not his fault the team is terrible. Even if he was playing out of his mind and way above his career averages we're not winning enough games here for it to matter.

I have even less to say about Coach Joerger because you really do have to watch a lot of games in succession to start to figure out the personality of the coach and the decisions they're making. I don't feel like he's doing a bad job though because I did watch the team last year and in this game I saw a full team actively engaged and competing and working together despite a losing record at the mid-point of the season. At this point in the year George Karl had already lost the team. That was why he needed to go -- players were actually playing worse because of how much they hated the coach. I think this year we're just bad. Do you hate the sky for being blue? That's just what it is. VF21 has the right idea -- you can watch a bad team and still find reasons to enjoy the process. Railing about how much players suck just seems like such a waste of energy. If it makes you that unhappy to watch them, then maybe don't watch? No one is going to revoke your fan license because of it. Just a thought.

 

[hrdboild]

I think Joerger just needs to tell the fellas to launch more threes at this point. Run more plays with the 3 as an option. Hill, Heild, Frank, Bogdan and Skal need more good looks at the 3 IMO.

For a team that ranks so highly on three point percentage, it's at least worth trying to exploit that strength by shooting more of them.

 

[Telemachus]

For a team that ranks so highly on three point percentage, it's at least worth trying to exploit that strength by shooting more of them.

The first step in accomplishing this would be for the players to STOP passing up so many open shots.

 

[mac]

I'm just tired of the nonsense, that's why I don't watch. If I occasionally pop in and watch a game I'm probably going to want to write about what I saw though. That's why we're here right? If George Hill was terrible I would have written about that. I don't think anyone else has issues either, but I do think certain folks could use a little bit of perspective adjustment. George Hill is playing pretty much how he's always played. It's made him a valuable player on 8 playoff teams in 9 years. No he's not a max contract guy. Yes that $20M salary is awfully big this year but it's not hurting the team --- that's money that had to be spent anyway. I've scanned boxscores and seen that he had a bad stretch early in the season which apparently has fixed his reputation as a bum and a malcontent for a lot of people but I'm actually glad George Hill isn't out there taking 25 shots per game trying to prove that he deserves his salary. That would be way more disruptive. And it's not why we signed him in the first place...

It all just speaks to a disconnect I think between what the team was actually doing this summer and how it was maybe presented. I don't know how it was presented because I'm pretty far removed from any Sacramento Kings related media. I usually end up watching the other team's broadcast and I'm not in Sacramento so I don't know what local reporters are saying. But I get the impression that some people expected a lot more out of this roster than 20-30 wins, a last place finish, and a top draft pick. A lot of money was spent on Zach Randolph, Vince Carter, and George Hill but all of them have 1 or 2 year deals (with the small exception of a $1M buyout for Hill which is only there to help his trade value). That wasn't "let's go for it" money it was a short-term investment so we weren't put into a position where we have to play rookies before they're ready. And to maybe get a trade asset down the road. And to maybe see if some of Popovich's magic pixie dust can indirectly make it to our young players. I kid, but it is actually a big deal that Goerge Hill has played with Hall of Fame players and coaches and played in playoff games with Pop and knows how that winning culture works. That's the biggest chunk of the $20M he's making just for that. And then you have to account for the "Sacramento" overpay because of the small market, poor reputation throughout the league currently, and no shot at the playoffs.

Yes it probably is a bit of a culture shock for a player who's made the playoffs in 8 out of 9 years of his career to come to a team that hasn't been there in over a decade. Even if he willingly signed up for it, it's going to feel different once you're on the court in a game that counts and realize just how bad your team is going to be for the next 6 months. Yes I'm now officially a George Hill apologist. Truth is, I have no idea what's going on with him-- what he's thinking, whether he's embraced the mentor ship role or not, whether he even has interesting things to say to the young players or not. But I do know it's not his fault the team is terrible. Even if he was playing out of his mind and way above his career averages we're not winning enough games here for it to matter.

I have even less to say about Coach Joerger because you really do have to watch a lot of games in succession to start to figure out the personality of the coach and the decisions they're making. I don't feel like he's doing a bad job though because I did watch the team last year and in this game I saw a full team actively engaged and competing and working together despite a losing record at the mid-point of the season. At this point in the year George Karl had already lost the team. That was why he needed to go -- players were actually playing worse because of how much they hated the coach. I think this year we're just bad. Do you hate the sky for being blue? That's just what it is. VF21 has the right idea -- you can watch a bad team and still find reasons to enjoy the process. Railing about how much players suck just seems like such a waste of energy. If it makes you that unhappy to watch them, then maybe don't watch? No one is going to revoke your fan license because of it. Just a thought.

See that's the thing, he hasn't been playing pretty much how he's always played, despite you repeating it over and over. He is averaging lower than his career averages, and definitely far off his performance last year, while you would expect a player's raw stats to actually be better when he's not deferring to Gordon Hayward or Paul George. He's pretty much averaging the same as Fox at this point, who for a big chunk of the season played very poorly, and still he is getting more minutes than Fox. I'm not sure what there is to defend, the guy was brought in for a certain role, and has underachieved even by his own standards, and has not carried himself well on the court, coaching guys, encouraging them, showing support, cheering off the bench etc. None of this has anything to do with salary. Of course it's not one players' fault that this team is bad, but I don't think anybody is blaming a single party in all of this. In fact, it's not so much blame as it is that a veteran player should not be playing if he's not helping the team to do any better. That's simply it - if you're not helping the young guys get better or play better or even setting an example then why are you stopping them from getting more time? And it actually does matter if he was playing out of his mind because then we could trade him for something more than a bag of chips.

I simply don't understand how you can keep on defending him when you openly admit to not watching more than a handful of games. It feels like you've simply assumed that a big number of fans here can't be right because you watched one game and disagree with their assessment, and I find that puzzling considering you are typically a very thoughtful and insightful poster.

It's hard to say whether Karl would have lost this team, because "coach-killer" #1 is no longer around. Nobody can deny that the roster was constructed with nice guys, guys who are willing to learn and vets who regardless of their play are guys who in the past 7 years have carried themselves very well. But if you look purely at rotations, at slow starts, yanking guys, forcing a certain style of play etc, it's hard to make a case that Joerger is any better than Karl, and the fact that this comparison even needs to be made is kind of sad.

You're absolutely right that we shouldn't be going on about how much a player sucks (although this board had no issue with that when Cousins was losing year after year here and it was every other player and owner and coach's fault). But we should be questioning if coach is putting the team in the best position to succeed, and if a veteran's minutes and play on the court results in hampering the progress of the young guys then we should absolutely be questioning how that player's minutes are warranted.

 

[hrdboild]

See that's the thing, he hasn't been playing pretty much how he's always played, despite you repeating it over and over. He is averaging lower than his career averages, and definitely far off his performance last year, while you would expect a player's raw stats to actually be better when he's not deferring to Gordon Hayward or Paul George. He's pretty much averaging the same as Fox at this point, who for a big chunk of the season played very poorly, and still he is getting more minutes than Fox. I'm not sure what there is to defend, the guy was brought in for a certain role, and has underachieved even by his own standards, and has not carried himself well on the court, coaching guys, encouraging them, showing support, cheering off the bench etc. None of this has anything to do with salary. Of course it's not one players' fault that this team is bad, but I don't think anybody is blaming a single party in all of this. In fact, it's not so much blame as it is that a veteran player should not be playing if he's not helping the team to do any better. That's simply it - if you're not helping the young guys get better or play better or even setting an example then why are you stopping them from getting more time? And it actually does matter if he was playing out of his mind because then we could trade him for something more than a bag of chips.

I simply don't understand how you can keep on defending him when you openly admit to not watching more than a handful of games. It feels like you've simply assumed that a big number of fans here can't be right because you watched one game and disagree with their assessment, and I find that puzzling considering you are typically a very thoughtful and insightful poster.

It's hard to say whether Karl would have lost this team, because "coach-killer" #1 is no longer around. Nobody can deny that the roster was constructed with nice guys, guys who are willing to learn and vets who regardless of their play are guys who in the past 7 years have carried themselves very well. But if you look purely at rotations, at slow starts, yanking guys, forcing a certain style of play etc, it's hard to make a case that Joerger is any better than Karl, and the fact that this comparison even needs to be made is kind of sad.

You're absolutely right that we shouldn't be going on about how much a player sucks (although this board had no issue with that when Cousins was losing year after year here and it was every other player and owner and coach's fault). But we should be questioning if coach is putting the team in the best position to succeed, and if a veteran's minutes and play on the court results in hampering the progress of the young guys then we should absolutely be questioning how that player's minutes are warranted.

It was a just a tossed-off observation in my initial post. I've been hearing over and over about how awful this guy is this year and I watched him once and he looked like the same player he's always been. Besides that, the overall stats don't show that he's been a disaster. And he's a 9 year veteran with a reputation for being a hard-worker and a team player. Most of your criticisms I can't directly confirm or refute so there's not much point trying to continue the argument further. Just to clarify though, it's not like I'm trying to argue that George Hill has been terrific this season. By any measure he's been a mild disappointment. It's the degree to which he's been a disappointment that I think is being blown out of proportion. It's obvious that he's done something to draw the ire of so many fans but perhaps because I don't have that same emotional reaction it's easier for me to see that his numbers are actually very close to his career averages. He's taking less shots and his assists are down a little bit (I'm looking at per36 numbers to account for his decrease in minutes this year) but his scoring efficiency is right where it's always been and his three point shooting percentage is a career high.

If all you care about is 17 and 4 (a benchmark he's hit once in his career and isn't likely to reach again) then yeah, this season looks pretty bad but there's so much more to the story than just that. Last year was kindof a fluke... look at his career averages: 11.7 and 3.3. That's the guy we signed. Even as a starter he's always been pretty low on the pecking order. I would actually expect his scoring efficiency to go down without a Paul George or Gordon Hayward on the floor attracting attention. George Hill as primary scoring option is a scenario that was doomed to fail from the beginning. He's a complimentary player, a system guy. He takes open shots. De'Aaron Fox is much more equipped to put pressure on a defense with his speed and ball-handling skills. I don't think George Hill was ever meant to be much more than what he is now as a player -- he was brought in primarily to teach our two rookie PGs what it means to be a professional. Like I said, I can't really speak to that. If there were reports coming out that Hill is a problem in the locker room than I would understand all the anger. Was there something I missed? Is this primarily about him not cheering when he's on the bench? Jason Jones just posted an article today that hints at Hill's veteran leadership. I just don't see what the problem is here. If it's just about fans needing to find a scapegoat whenever the team loses, I understand that impulse completely. And it's the biggest reason why I'm not watching more games right now. I already knew what this season was going to be like as soon as Cousins was traded. I'd rather wait until after this year's draft to see what we've got.