Luke Walton

#61
Nah, easier to just blame Buddy for everything bad this season.
People call the games as they see them. If a guy takes a quarter of the teams shots, half of which are terribly inefficient shots, and he misses most of them, people are going to point it out. If a guy leaves his man wide open for 3 in a 3 point game to go help in the paint, people are going point it out. If he lets a guy drive the length of the court and score the go ahead point with 1 second left, having to only make one cut the entire way, people are going to point it out. People can say that it's Westbrook so you really can't stop him but if that was true, Westbrook would just take the ball the length of the court and score 100 points a game.

On the flip side of things, when Buddy does well, people are going to point that out too. His last two games have been very good on the offensive side of the ball and that clutch shot he made was just as important at Bjelica's. He has been taking shots inside the confines of the offense and it's been a heck of a lot more efficient than trying to put the team on his back. He can net you the same amount of points with 5-10 less shots taken on many nights by doing this.

I just don't understand the constant snark from you guys about this every day. There is no whipping boy here. Just people calling it like they see it. If a player makes a dumb play, and Buddy makes a lot of them, the fans are going to notice. When he does well, he gets his praise. That's kind of what we do here.
 
#62
People call the games as they see them. If a guy takes a quarter of the teams shots, half of which are terribly inefficient shots, and he misses most of them, people are going to point it out. If a guy leaves his man wide open for 3 in a 3 point game to go help in the paint, people are going point it out. If he lets a guy drive the length of the court and score the go ahead point with 1 second left, having to only make one cut the entire way, people are going to point it out. People can say that it's Westbrook so you really can't stop him but if that was true, Westbrook would just take the ball the length of the court and score 100 points a game.

On the flip side of things, when Buddy does well, people are going to point that out too. His last two games have been very good on the offensive side of the ball and that clutch shot he made was just as important at Bjelica's. He has been taking shots inside the confines of the offense and it's been a heck of a lot more efficient than trying to put the team on his back. He can net you the same amount of points with 5-10 less shots taken on many nights by doing this.

I just don't understand the constant snark from you guys about this every day. There is no whipping boy here. Just people calling it like they see it. If a player makes a dumb play, and Buddy makes a lot of them, the fans are going to notice. When he does well, he gets his praise. That's kind of what we do here.
Please point out said praise by the guys who have been bashing him all season. Buddy makes a turnover and guys pile on saying he's dumb blablabla low IQ. Barnes loses the ball or CoJo gets it stolen consecutively and you don't hear the same kind of criticism. So no my friend, that is very much not what we do here.

Honestly I don't think the shots Buddy has attempted these past two games have been of significantly better quality as if now he's not dribbling and just catching to shoot wide open. Aside from maybe driving a bit more (which some here criticize him for because dribbles right), he's largely taking the same kinds of shots. The difference is he's hitting them. You keep bringing up this idea of efficiency but I don't think it's that plain and simple. Things don't happen in isolation. Buddy playing better doesn't magically coincide with Bjeli and CoJo hitting their shots, and him taking more "inefficient" shots also doesn't magically coincide with Barnes playing poorly on the offensive end.
 
Last edited:
#63
Please point out said praise by the guys who have been bashing him all season. Buddy makes a turnover and guys pile on saying he's dumb blablabla low IQ. Barnes loses the ball or CoJo gets it stolen consecutively and you don't hear the same kind of criticism. So no my friend, that is very much not what we do here.

Honestly I don't think the shots Buddy has attempted these past two games have been of significantly better quality as if now he's not dribbling and just catching to shoot wide open. Aside from maybe driving a bit more (which some here criticize him for because dribbles right), he's largely taking the same kinds of shots. The difference is he's hitting them. You keep bringing up this idea of efficiency but I don't think it's that plain and simple. Things don't happen in isolation. Buddy playing better doesn't magically coincide with Bjeli and CoJo hitting their shots, and him taking more "inefficient" shots also doesn't magically coincide with Barnes playing poorly on the offensive end.
The isolation (or non-isolation) principle seems to apply only to Buddy in this reply. That is, Bjelica and Cojo hitting their shots and Barnes playing poorly on the offensive end are presented as inputs into this equation and those inputs don't seem to depend on anything. Buddy's play is the result of his teammates success/struggles, but those teammates either hit or miss their shots independent of anything else.

But Buddy's play and choices are as much of an input into everything as those other things you listed. As you said, nothing happens in isolation.
 
#64
The isolation (or non-isolation) principle seems to apply only to Buddy in this reply. That is, Bjelica and Cojo hitting their shots and Barnes playing poorly on the offensive end are presented as inputs into this equation and those inputs don't seem to depend on anything. Buddy's play is the result of his teammates success/struggles, but those teammates either hit or miss their shots independent of anything else.

But Buddy's play and choices are as much of an input into everything as those other things you listed. As you said, nothing happens in isolation.
Well to a certain extent I think what you're saying is fair, but on the other hand defensive schemes are a real thing, and the tape shows that defenses have been focused a lot more on Hield than on some of these other guys. I would not call him a ballhog/ unwilling passer. A poor passer, arguably, but not an unwilling one. But if defenses focus on Hield and other guys aren't making shots then I don't see how you blame just one guy rather than the whole team, or better yet, just recognize that the team is really shorthanded and limited for the moment.
 
#65
Well to a certain extent I think what you're saying is fair, but on the other hand defensive schemes are a real thing, and the tape shows that defenses have been focused a lot more on Hield than on some of these other guys. I would not call him a ballhog/ unwilling passer. A poor passer, arguably, but not an unwilling one. But if defenses focus on Hield and other guys aren't making shots then I don't see how you blame just one guy rather than the whole team, or better yet, just recognize that the team is really shorthanded and limited for the moment.
I have defended Bogdanovic from similar criticism. I think that when our movement stops, the ball handler ends up looking bad. If the pick and roll does not work right away (we have trouble when teams switch), and if dribbling through the paint does not end up in a shot or pass (ball handler circles through paint but is covered and no one is open cause everyone is standing), then the ball handler kind of resets and has to take contested shot in iso situation.

The other type of "bad shot" we take is the quick three early in shotclock when we have only made couple of passes along the perimeter. This might be intentional and encouraged by coaching staff to some degree. But I think it gets exarcabeted by lack of movement when players figure, well this is the best shot we will create let me just pop this 3 now...
 
#66
Buddy will get back to near All-Star level when Fox and Bagley return. Buddy reminds me of Klay Thompson in how he can be a fantastic 2nd option if he is being fed right and creating his offense off-the-ball. Right now, all the focus is on him and he's trying to will this team to victory. I commend his efforts but it's making him inefficient. He will improve maybe even as soon as Bagley knocks off the ring rust.
 
#67
Please point out said praise by the guys who have been bashing him all season. Buddy makes a turnover and guys pile on saying he's dumb blablabla low IQ. Barnes loses the ball or CoJo gets it stolen consecutively and you don't hear the same kind of criticism. So no my friend, that is very much not what we do here.

Honestly I don't think the shots Buddy has attempted these past two games have been of significantly better quality as if now he's not dribbling and just catching to shoot wide open. Aside from maybe driving a bit more (which some here criticize him for because dribbles right), he's largely taking the same kinds of shots. The difference is he's hitting them. You keep bringing up this idea of efficiency but I don't think it's that plain and simple. Things don't happen in isolation. Buddy playing better doesn't magically coincide with Bjeli and CoJo hitting their shots, and him taking more "inefficient" shots also doesn't magically coincide with Barnes playing poorly on the offensive end.
It should come as no shock to you that Buddy has the lowest BBIQ on the team as far as veteran players go. We can't even begin to have this conversation if you don't think that Buddy routinely makes the dumbest mistakes on the team because most every other fan has noticed it since the moment he got here. Last year is when he finally broke out and stopped making them on a routine basis. He started out this year as bad as he's ever been in that department but he's been getting better lately even though he still makes at least 2 head scratching mistakes a game.

There was a lot less Buddy iso in the Rockets game than there was in some of those previous games. If you can get him to catch and shoot his 3 pointers instead of searching for them off the dribble, that's when his efficiency goes way up. He's well above average playing off the ball but below average if he has the ball in his hands a lot. It's not his game. His game is predicated on shooting efficiently and if he can't do that, he's a liability. Coach's #1 priority with Buddy should be to ensure he stays efficient because without that you don't have much of a player, but with that you have one of the best players on the team.
 
#68
It should come as no shock to you that Buddy has the lowest BBIQ on the team as far as veteran players go. We can't even begin to have this conversation if you don't think that Buddy routinely makes the dumbest mistakes on the team because most every other fan has noticed it since the moment he got here. Last year is when he finally broke out and stopped making them on a routine basis. He started out this year as bad as he's ever been in that department but he's been getting better lately even though he still makes at least 2 head scratching mistakes a game.

There was a lot less Buddy iso in the Rockets game than there was in some of those previous games. If you can get him to catch and shoot his 3 pointers instead of searching for them off the dribble, that's when his efficiency goes way up. He's well above average playing off the ball but below average if he has the ball in his hands a lot. It's not his game. His game is predicated on shooting efficiently and if he can't do that, he's a liability. Coach's #1 priority with Buddy should be to ensure he stays efficient because without that you don't have much of a player, but with that you have one of the best players on the team.
You keep saying this yet havent shown it to be the case. And while I don't expect you to be a coaching genius, I'd like you to give some idea of how exactly you expect our #1 offensive threat to be a catch and shoot player given the rest of the currently available personnel. Who is going to drive the ball? Who is collapsing the defense? The only realistic answer I have is you try and play off a pick and roll with Holmes and CoJo/Barnes.

I argued that Buddy similar shots, just that he was making them. Take a look at the shots Buddy made and tell me where exactly are these open efficient catch and shoots, non off dribble shots he took you are referring to.
 
Last edited:
#69
On the other hand, fouling was an ABSOLUTE no-no in that situation and Russ was gunning for contact. Buddy had to give ground without fouling and Holmes (for as good as he has been) was late sliding over to help.
To be fair, Holmes had to stick close enough to PJ Tucker, who was spaced in the corner. Not really his fault. Yet he still nearly got there.
 
#70
My only gripe with him so far has been his usage of Buddy Hield in important last second defensive plays. Hield blew it against San Antonio and was a Bjelica 35ft miracle shot away from blowing it in Houston by letting Westbrook drive the length of the court and go right by him as if he wasn't even standing there. Luke really needs to get Buddy off the court in those situations and get Ariza or even James in his place if he has to.
Exactly now I see it. He can’t keep throwing Buddy out there in situations where a last possession stop is needed and keep expecting good things to happen. Buddy’s a weak and sometimes missing link in the defensive chain.

Love the guy, but it’s true. He’ll step up and make a really nice defensive play from time to time, he doesn’t do it consistently enough IMO to be trusted at the end of games.
 
#72
Exactly now I see it. He can’t keep throwing Buddy out there in situations where a last possession stop is needed and keep expecting good things to happen. Buddy’s a weak and sometimes missing link in the defensive chain.

Love the guy, but it’s true. He’ll step up and make a really nice defensive play from time to time, he doesn’t do it consistently enough IMO to be trusted at the end of games.
Coaches need to balance winning tonight's game and player development. So Walton sometimes needs to put him out there and make people think "Oh no, not again." It's true that might make it more difficult to win tonight, but the long-range goal is to be able to confidently put Buddy on the floor at crunch time. So you have to give him Some crunch time minutes for learning purposes. But not too many.
 
#73
Coach Walton has proven to be an excellent hire. His play calling out of a time out has been Adelman'esque. Such a breath of fresh air here in Sac.
I mean, he's done a good job so far, but this statement makes it seems like Joerger wasn't good at that. It was the thing Joerger was THE best at. Maybe in the entire NBA.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#74
I mean, he's done a good job so far, but this statement makes it seems like Joerger wasn't good at that. It was the thing Joerger was THE best at. Maybe in the entire NBA.
I feel like this is something where we've let that time our defense fell asleep and allowed Courtney Lee to sit under the basket with .3 left on the clock cloud our judgement.
 
#75
I mean, he's done a good job so far, but this statement makes it seems like Joerger wasn't good at that. It was the thing Joerger was THE best at. Maybe in the entire NBA.
You‘re right. Coach Joerger was very good at situational play calling.

I had been thinking about starting a thread once we hit 27 games and 1/3 of the season to compare and contrast the pluses and minuses of both coaches. What we like better, what we don’t. But it’s really just too early to do so.

We fans had a much longer look at Coach Joerger, largely in the early developmental stages of the core group. Coach Walton has had to deal with significant injuries to his top players but he’s also inherited a team that’s a bit more mature and veteran laden, in terms of who has been making the biggest impact.

I like what I’ve seen from Coach Walton since the disappointing 0-5 start, but it’s still too early and too small a sample size to really draw conclusions IMO.
 
#77
Walton is a good coach.
One of the ways I know that is true, is that the Kings weaknesses in their losses are a moving target. They change all the time.
Defensive lapses. Defensive weakness inside, turnovers, poor rebounding, not sharing the ball enough, etc.
The trick is to attend to all of these things all the time.
 
#78
Any Questions?

Well, yes actually. Why is it that almost every player on this roster is underachieving?

Fox is par in small sample size
Cojo FG% is down 40% from last year in Indiana from 41 to 36%
Hield shooting % is way down, all other numbers are on par
Bogie numbers are par for the course
Barnes shooting % is down in both 2 pt and 3 from his time with Joerger
Ariza numbers are down across the board
Bjelica numbers are same
Bagley numbers are all down
Holmes actually is playing similar in production to last year in PHX but is getting twice the playing time
Dedmon numbers are down by a country mile from his whole career

Defense is another category all together where we somehow have regressed while adding seemingly better options to the bench
 
#81
Any Questions?

Well, yes actually. Why is it that almost every player on this roster is underachieving?

Fox is par in small sample size
Cojo FG% is down 40% from last year in Indiana from 41 to 36%
Hield shooting % is way down, all other numbers are on par
Bogie numbers are par for the course
Barnes shooting % is down in both 2 pt and 3 from his time with Joerger
Ariza numbers are down across the board
Bjelica numbers are same
Bagley numbers are all down
Holmes actually is playing similar in production to last year in PHX but is getting twice the playing time
Dedmon numbers are down by a country mile from his whole career

Defense is another category all together where we somehow have regressed while adding seemingly better options to the bench
What I want to know is where the rumor started that this guy was a good X's and O's coach? I constantly see people saying that about him but I've yet to see any evidence of that on the court.

What exactly is it that this guy is good at? His offense is much worse than Joerger's despite the players having more time to develop and his defense is the same as Joerger's despite having much better defenders on the team.
 
#83
I said Luke's test would come when Bagley/Fox came back from injury and he/they have failed in every single way thus far. It's a lot easier to win when you got only veterans who really did scrap for him for a 15-20 game stretch but that's only a short term solution since in the long term that's a strategy to nowhere, either the young guys we are currently building around are not capable or he's not capable of helping them.

It's really hard personally for me to know what a good coach is because so much depends on the players (GM trades/drafts/signings), Rick Carlise won like 30 games last 3 seasons and now he's got a couple good players and they are 8-10 games over 500.

As good as Joerger was for about 3/5ths of the season the latter half when we got Barnes was a Chernobyl type meltdown ending in losing to a G-League squad in the last game.
 
#84
What I want to know is where the rumor started that this guy was a good X's and O's coach? I constantly see people saying that about him but I've yet to see any evidence of that on the court.

What exactly is it that this guy is good at? His offense is much worse than Joerger's despite the players having more time to develop and his defense is the same as Joerger's despite having much better defenders on the team.
The weird thing is how far we've fallen off since Nov/early Dec. Our after time out plays were looking very very good back then.
 
#85
I think most would agree that there is no single cause of our struggles and that, in the sparse moments we have performed well, there is no single factor responsible.

In fairness to Luke, the team has had a difficult run with injuries, has lost a number of close games, some of which the officials are at least partially responsible. Last year, although the team was in contention for the playoffs for most of the season, they only really had one five game win streak early on (from memory) and just seemed to fight decline for the rest of the season. It would take time to implement a system, perhaps longer for a young team that does not have any current all star calibre players.

Against Luke, he did not have a winning year in three seasons as Lakers coach and seems like the first coach to not get a LeBron team to the playoffs. His coaching resume before that might simply be right place right time. Last year I feel we could have made the playoffs but our cynical coach coached us out of them (comments as an outsider). That same team now seems to be uncompetitive on most nights.

I think I'm a little bit torn. Perhaps my expectation that the Kings would compete/ qualify for the playoffs was unrealistic given that our best player (I think) is a third year guard who is still trying to put the blocks together. On the other hand, I would have liked us to be at least a little bit competitive and try to make it a lot harder for other teams. Luke might still figure it out - and I think 'can he figure it out' is a better way to judge than 'does he get it right straight away'. Clocks do click though.
 
#86
I think most would agree that there is no single cause of our struggles and that, in the sparse moments we have performed well, there is no single factor responsible.

In fairness to Luke, the team has had a difficult run with injuries, has lost a number of close games, some of which the officials are at least partially responsible. Last year, although the team was in contention for the playoffs for most of the season, they only really had one five game win streak early on (from memory) and just seemed to fight decline for the rest of the season. It would take time to implement a system, perhaps longer for a young team that does not have any current all star calibre players.

Against Luke, he did not have a winning year in three seasons as Lakers coach and seems like the first coach to not get a LeBron team to the playoffs. His coaching resume before that might simply be right place right time. Last year I feel we could have made the playoffs but our cynical coach coached us out of them (comments as an outsider). That same team now seems to be uncompetitive on most nights.

I think I'm a little bit torn. Perhaps my expectation that the Kings would compete/ qualify for the playoffs was unrealistic given that our best player (I think) is a third year guard who is still trying to put the blocks together. On the other hand, I would have liked us to be at least a little bit competitive and try to make it a lot harder for other teams. Luke might still figure it out - and I think 'can he figure it out' is a better way to judge than 'does he get it right straight away'. Clocks do click though.
Disagree the play of Holmes/Bjelica carried the team hard
 
#87
Missed it, what did he have to say? Anything worthwhile?
Not really. It was a letdown. I was hoping that Grant, and more importantly Doug, would really drill down into the issues more. Instead of asking Luke why things weren’t working or what he thinks could improve things, real inquisitive questions, they asked him sort of leading questions. Examples being: “Injuries have hit this team hard and have played a big part in why things are what they are. How big of an impact do you think injuries have made?” Or “It seems like the Kings do better when the ball moves more. How much does it kill you when the guys take shots and not try and move the ball around more?” I will give the guys credit for asking if they think Luke lost the locker room though. Of course he said he didn’t and that there is still plenty of buy in from the guys. But aside from that it felt like more of a PR stunt on behalf of the front office to keep try and calm down fans.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#88
Not really. It was a letdown. I was hoping that Grant, and more importantly Doug, would really drill down into the issues more. Instead of asking Luke why things weren’t working or what he thinks could improve things, real inquisitive questions, they asked him sort of leading questions. Examples being: “Injuries have hit this team hard and have played a big part in why things are what they are. How big of an impact do you think injuries have made?” Or “It seems like the Kings do better when the ball moves more. How much does it kill you when the guys take shots and not try and move the ball around more?” I will give the guys credit for asking if they think Luke lost the locker room though. Of course he said he didn’t and that there is still plenty of buy in from the guys. But aside from that it felt like more of a PR stunt on behalf of the front office to keep try and calm down fans.
If it felt like that, it's because that's exactly what it was. And it's no different than when any other coach of any other team in any other sport goes on the radio/TV/etc. or a Hollywood star goes on Entertainment Tonight.
 
#90
If it felt like that, it's because that's exactly what it was. And it's no different than when any other coach of any other team in any other sport goes on the radio/TV/etc. or a Hollywood star goes on Entertainment Tonight.
Right and it's to be expected. But I guess between Grant tweeting that Luke was there to answer to the fans and respond to some of their biggest concerns, and with the mix of confusion and disgust Doug has been showing lately, I expected more.