Mullin offered job as consultant

[Arco Arena]

Whining is not an exhibition of passion, it is an exhibition of whining.

This is a guy putting together his executive team. It is his prerogative entirely to pick guys he's comfortable with where he will have good mutual trust. There is nothing wrong or weird with the persistent Bay Area/Warriors ties. It is just "freak out" mode to say "... omg I don't know if I like the sound of this consultant hire".

The degree to which fan feedback should guide Vivek's hand when it comes to hiring a consultant in his front office is exactly zero. Nobody on this board is in a position to lend a credible opinion on whether or not hiring Mullin as a consultant is a good way for Vivek to spend his money or build his team.

It is Pete, Michael, and Vivek's team for a while. Give it a TRY before you cry... sheesh.

And if they want to hire Kenny Smith or Chris Mullin or anybody else to tip back drinks and share ideas with, it is just fine.

One of the best features of this Senior Management team is the apparent synergy and lack of ego war among them. We're in a great place.

You missed my point. You can label opposing views as "whining" but it's completely normal for people to have differing opinions. Repressing the opinions of others doesn't seem right.

The consultant rumor just happens to be the latest news, so some people are giving their opinions about it. It's what fans do.

 

[rainmaker]

Whining is not an exhibition of passion, it is an exhibition of whining.

This is a guy putting together his executive team. It is his prerogative entirely to pick guys he's comfortable with where he will have good mutual trust. There is nothing wrong or weird with the persistent Bay Area/Warriors ties. It is just "freak out" mode to say "... omg I don't know if I like the sound of this consultant hire".

No it's not. One thing I've learned here is one person's analysis is another's whining. If you're not analytical and prefer thinking on emotion, then you have a problem with any perceived negative. And here's a great example of your overreacting and whining.

It is just "freak out" mode to say "... omg I don't know if I like the sound of this consultant hire".

That's not freak out mode, it's a completely valid opinion. This tells me you simply can't handle opposing opinions, nor did you actually argue against that opinion with anything factual. Instead, you're whining about and blowing out of proportion what you've convinced yourself is freak out mode.

If you want other examples, go back and look at people being told they were being too negative about the Maloofs, about Smart, about Chuck/Outlaw, about taking on Salmons, about signing Brooks, etc, and then see how that turned out. Some people's initial reaction is simply to back every single move or decision this team makes, and they rarely offer any analysis or reasoning behind it except for, Go Kings!

People aren't disagreeing with points made, they're disagreeing with posts not deemed positive enough for whatever reality they created.

 

[Bricklayer]

kinda whatever on the Mullins hiring, no idea what advantage his presence will really bring, but I doubt it'll be a detriment in any way. as for the smallball panic, and I know this won't be a popular opinion, but please note that the two teams clashing in yesterday's finals matchup both started small forwards at the four spot. Golden State only gained traction in their playoffs run when they started using Harrison Barnes as a stretch four, New York played their best basketball using Melo as a PF and the Rockets were also considerably better once they banned their sad collection of real power forwards to the bench. now, I'm not advocating small ball as a general ideology, neither for this team, with the personnel assembled, no for any other one and I'm well aware that teams like Memphis and Indiana owe much of their success to refusing to go small (Memphis less so than Indiana). all I'm saying is that small ball can work, if the team is constructed correctly (an anchor in the fashion of Bogut, Asik or Chandler would be a must, for instance), isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The Finals observation is invalid because the progression there is simple: Miami is pathetic up front, know it, damn near got knocked out of the playoffs because of it, and out of desperation threw an all time great versatile HOF SF into the PF spot. San Antonio made their move to match the Heat. Same issue that confronted the Thudner last year. But this "small ball revolution" is pretty much restricted to teams that have 6'9" 260lb 30ppg "small" forwards that are headed to the hall someday, and then teams that choose to try to match that strategy (a mistake I generally think -- as Indiana showed you stay big and pound the smallballers to death, but they had West, while the Spurs, like the Thunder, don't have a scoring PF to counter with).

Golden State of course got their playoff traction so to speak against Denver, which kinda invalidates the thing, and is the source for some of my ?? over front office hires here. Golden State and Denver have been trying to win running uptempo smallball for 30 years now and have never won squat, for good reason. I think collectively those two franchises have the same number of Conference Finals appearances (1 combined) as the Kings themselves have had during the entire Sacramento era. Hiring multiple people raised up through broken systems is not necessarily a perfect blueprint for success.

 

[HndsmCelt]

No argument with Birck's observation's about Denver and GSW being broken, but an intelligent man might learn from the mistakes. As the expression goes: "Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."

 

[jalfa]

The Finals observation is invalid because the progression there is simple: Miami is pathetic up front, know it, damn near got knocked out of the playoffs because of it, and out of desperation threw an all time great versatile HOF SF into the PF spot. San Antonio made their move to match the Heat. Same issue that confronted the Thudner last year. But this "small ball revolution" is pretty much restricted to teams that have 6'9" 260lb 30ppg "small" forwards that are headed to the hall someday, and then teams that choose to try to match that strategy (a mistake I generally think -- as Indiana showed you stay big and pound the smallballers to death, but they had West, while the Spurs, like the Thunder, don't have a scoring PF to counter with).

Golden State of course got their playoff traction so to speak against Denver, which kinda invalidates the thing, and is the source for some of my ?? over front office hires here. Golden State and Denver have been trying to win running uptempo smallball for 30 years now and have never won squat, for good reason. I think collectively those two franchises have the same number of Conference Finals appearances (1 combined) as the Kings themselves have had during the entire Sacramento era. Hiring multiple people raised up through broken systems is not necessarily a perfect blueprint for success.

no real argument here, as far as the Kings are concerned. right now we don't have anywhere near the SF that could be thrust into the four spot and make it work, neither would we be able to have a functioning defense as long as we've got Cuz. we need a defensive anchor, he's not that and we sure as hell aren't going to find an SF to be that. with all the comments so far concerning how valuable Cuz is going to be for the team, I doubt our new brass will be dumb enough to think that small ball with him around will be a real option.

my point was rather that opposed a few years back, when small balling were freak occurences that met swift death in the playoffs, this year quite a number of teams played lots of small ball successfully. even the Grizzlies sometimes threw out lineups with Tayshaun Prince at the four and you could argue that outside of Miami no team put up a better fight against the Spurs than Golden State did. I know it historically hasn't worked, but with the rule changes that enabled zone defense to be played more easily and effectively, small ball has become a more realistic option.

 

[Bricklayer]

no real argument here, as far as the Kings are concerned. right now we don't have anywhere near the SF that could be thrust into the four spot and make it work, neither would we be able to have a functioning defense as long as we've got Cuz. we need a defensive anchor, he's not that and we sure as hell aren't going to find an SF to be that. with all the comments so far concerning how valuable Cuz is going to be for the team, I doubt our new brass will be dumb enough to think that small ball with him around will be a real option.

my point was rather that opposed a few years back, when small balling were freak occurences that met swift death in the playoffs, this year quite a number of teams played lots of small ball successfully. even the Grizzlies sometimes threw out lineups with Tayshaun Prince at the four and you could argue that outside of Miami no team put up a better fight against the Spurs than Golden State did. I know it historically hasn't worked, but with the rule changes that enabled zone defense to be played more easily and effectively, small ball has become a more realistic option.

Part of that is the dearth of DeMarcus Cousinses in the current NBA to smash the little guys. Part of that is perception. Teams have played stretch 4s for spells for decades. Houston even won a title while starting one several decades ago (barely). But the rule has always been only for stretches if they wanted to win in the playoffs. Anyone trying to imitate what you can do with LeBron James, who does not themselves have a LeBron James, is going to fail. Similar to the Jordan Bulls. You always needed a great big to win...until the Bulls came along and proved you could do it with the GOAT too, regardless of position. Well, Jordan retired, in a strange coincidence the titles instantly went back to being won by Duncan and Shaq and Dirk and Pau and Garnett...and then GOAT Jr. comes along and all of a sudden everybody thinks they can weenie their way to playoff success? Not how it works. Its another unique all timer making up his own rules. Like 6'9" PGs. Like Jordan. Meanwhile in the playoffs Denver died. Golden State died. Houston died. New York died. Even Miami was brought to its knees by a 49 win team that just happened to be able to ruin them inside. Our new hires absolutely get a chance to prove themselves with me, because outside of the stain of their previous employers on their resumes, we know nothing about them. But if they willingly took part in all that nonsense and thought it was a good thing that needs to be duplicated...well I am going to be at philosophical loggerheads with them from Day 1.

 

[John Galt]

it's a completely valid opinion.

Is not.

This tells me you simply can't handle opposing opinions

Can too!

But seriously - people are entitled to those opinions ... absolutely. But is Mullin's draft record really reason to think he can't be any kind of effective advisor? In my 'valid' opinion, that is a matter of chemistry between Vivek, Pete, Michael and Chris, and I don't feel it is cause for alarm. I also don't think it follows from any of this that the Kings are going to play "nellieball".

And while everyone is entitled to their opinion... it just seems a particularly dark and combative world view to pick apart every Vivek personnel rumor the way it has been going here. But everyone is within their rights to complain. A little bit of a buzzkill sometimes but, well, allowed under the rules

 

[Livinthedream]

I'm not worried about the nellieball thing either. For nellieball to take over, you have to have a nellie type coaching philosophy. I don't get the impression that is what Malone is about.

 

[mac]

Is not.



Can too!

But seriously - people are entitled to those opinions ... absolutely. But is Mullin's draft record really reason to think he can't be any kind of effective advisor? In my 'valid' opinion, that is a matter of chemistry between Vivek, Pete, Michael and Chris, and I don't feel it is cause for alarm. I also don't think it follows from any of this that the Kings are going to play "nellieball".

And while everyone is entitled to their opinion... it just seems a particularly dark and combative world view to pick apart every Vivek personnel rumor the way it has been going here. But everyone is within their rights to complain. A little bit of a buzzkill sometimes but, well, allowed under the rules

Sometimes things get picked apart with good reason. If you've noticed there hasn't been much "whining" over the hire of PDA. Its perfectly fine to just sit back and see what happens, but I don't think it's wrong for some handwringing over "questionable" choices, even if they are only rumors or reports and nothing final. As nice as it is to have a new ownership it won't mean diddly-squat if at the end of it all we don't put together a good FO. Thankfully it's gone well thus far, far better than reports were hinting at.

Put it this way - you scream at a player when he takes a bad or wild shot. You don't wait to see whether it goes in or not, you just scream first. If it goes in you then celebrate. To some, guys like Mullin and Wallace are the FO equivalents of bad shots.

 

[NewArena]

The Finals observation is invalid because the progression there is simple: Miami is pathetic up front, know it, damn near got knocked out of the playoffs because of it, and out of desperation threw an all time great versatile HOF SF into the PF spot. San Antonio made their move to match the Heat. Same issue that confronted the Thudner last year. But this "small ball revolution" is pretty much restricted to teams that have 6'9" 260lb 30ppg "small" forwards that are headed to the hall someday, and then teams that choose to try to match that strategy (a mistake I generally think -- as Indiana showed you stay big and pound the smallballers to death, but they had West, while the Spurs, like the Thunder, don't have a scoring PF to counter with).

Golden State of course got their playoff traction so to speak against Denver, which kinda invalidates the thing, and is the source for some of my ?? over front office hires here. Golden State and Denver have been trying to win running uptempo smallball for 30 years now and have never won squat, for good reason. I think collectively those two franchises have the same number of Conference Finals appearances (1 combined) as the Kings themselves have had during the entire Sacramento era. Hiring multiple people raised up through broken systems is not necessarily a perfect blueprint for success.

None of those teams have/had a Demarcus Cousins. I'm not worried about small ball and run n gun being the approach. Those Warrior teams from a few years ago, really had no choice. Go big with Foyle and Beidrins? eh.

But i do hope that our new GM stands firm and makes sure his final decisions, end up being just that. No last minute changes,
just because ur friend/idol - or whatever Chris mullin is to him - just because Mully has a different view. Hopefully he realizes the true
meaning of consultant.

 

[Telemachus]

I'm not worried about the nellieball thing either. For nellieball to take over, you have to have a nellie type coaching philosophy. I don't get the impression that is what Malone is about.

If they wanted to play Nellieball, the first thing the Kings would need to do is trade Cousins for players who aren't as big as him. Having a real center on the team goes against the whole philosophy of nellieball.

 

[rainmaker]

Is not.




And while everyone is entitled to their opinion... it just seems a particularly dark and combative world view to pick apart every Vivek personnel rumor the way it has been going here. But everyone is within their rights to complain. A little bit of a buzzkill sometimes but, well, allowed under the rules

Sports fans everywhere pick apart every rumor. That's part of being a fan in the internet age where we don't have to rely on radio, tv and the next morning's newspaper. And nothing you said in your response here I really disagree with. They were good points. But all we have to go on from Mullin is his time at GS, and there were a number of highly questionable moves. Ignoring those doesn't do anyone any good, but that's a choice. And some will take his history more seriously than others, but I don't think anyone would actually root for him not to succeed.

Also, this isn't just a rumor, PDA spoke directly about hiring Mullin today. I know some don't like rumors, and some are utter rubbish, but a number of them also turn out to have truth to them. Malone being hired was also just a rumor. Vivek interviewing Bird, Buford and Wallace were just rumors....later confirmed. What is going on now with Doc/Boston/Clippers are also rumors, but there's a lot of truth to them. It's a forum, people discuss rumors, it's normal. And whether I'm on this forum, an NFL forum, a soccer forum here or in Europe, rumors are always talked about, yet this is the only place I've ever encountered any type of resistance to discussing them. I'd probably suggest(not you personally) if rumors bother you so much, an internet forum is probably the last place you should be.

The alternative is Kingsfans is quiet compared to what it is now, there's half the discussion there is now and a number of posters leave. Is that really what people want? Of course, an MOD can always create a rumor section where discussion of rumors isn't taken as a problem by some.

P.S. Why is it ok to analyze IT, Reke, Cuz, Jimmer, Smart, Petrie, the Maloofs, the new arena, etc, yet not our new GM or FO consultant? Same people who don't like rumors being discussed in this thread were more than happy to discuss rumors relating to the Maloofs, new ownership and the arena.

 

[Livinthedream]

If they wanted to play Nellieball, the first thing the Kings would need to do is trade Cousins for players who aren't as big as him. Having a real center on the team goes against the whole philosophy of nellieball.

Nellie never had a problem pulling a big man out of the post. He'd convince Cousins he should be shooting threes.

 

[VF21]

Sports fans everywhere pick apart every rumor. That's part of being a fan in the internet age where we don't have to rely on radio, tv and the next morning's newspaper. And nothing you said in your response here I really disagree with. They were good points. But all we have to go on from Mullin is his time at GS, and there were a number of highly questionable moves. Ignoring those doesn't do anyone any good, but that's a choice. And some will take his history more seriously than others, but I don't think anyone would actually root for him not to succeed.

Also, this isn't just a rumor, PDA spoke directly about hiring Mullin today. I know some don't like rumors, and some are utter rubbish, but a number of them also turn out to have truth to them. Malone being hired was also just a rumor. Vivek interviewing Bird, Buford and Wallace were just rumors....later confirmed. What is going on now with Doc/Boston/Clippers are also rumors, but there's a lot of truth to them. It's a forum, people discuss rumors, it's normal. And whether I'm on this forum, an NFL forum, a soccer forum here or in Europe, rumors are always talked about, yet this is the only place I've ever encountered any type of resistance to discussing them. I'd probably suggest(not you personally) if rumors bother you so much, an internet forum is probably the last place you should be.

The alternative is Kingsfans is quiet compared to what it is now, there's half the discussion there is now and a number of posters leave. Is that really what people want? Of course, an MOD can always create a rumor section where discussion of rumors isn't taken as a problem by some.

P.S. Why is it ok to analyze IT, Reke, Cuz, Jimmer, Smart, Petrie, the Maloofs, the new arena, etc, yet not our new GM or FO consultant? Same people who don't like rumors being discussed in this thread were more than happy to discuss rumors relating to the Maloofs, new ownership and the arena.

It isn't the discussion or analysis that I, for example, was objecting to. It's the apparent mindset of at least a couple of posters to greet every single announcement, rumor, etc. with skepticism and an attitude that it portends doom. But I'm over it. I'm going to enjoy every single minute of the ride this time. If some cannot allow themselves to do the same, that's their choice.

 

[jalfa]

Part of that is the dearth of DeMarcus Cousinses in the current NBA to smash the little guys. Part of that is perception. Teams have played stretch 4s for spells for decades. Houston even won a title while starting one several decades ago (barely). But the rule has always been only for stretches if they wanted to win in the playoffs. Anyone trying to imitate what you can do with LeBron James, who does not themselves have a LeBron James, is going to fail. Similar to the Jordan Bulls. You always needed a great big to win...until the Bulls came along and proved you could do it with the GOAT too, regardless of position. Well, Jordan retired, in a strange coincidence the titles instantly went back to being won by Duncan and Shaq and Dirk and Pau and Garnett...and then GOAT Jr. comes along and all of a sudden everybody thinks they can weenie their way to playoff success? Not how it works. Its another unique all timer making up his own rules. Like 6'9" PGs. Like Jordan. Meanwhile in the playoffs Denver died. Golden State died. Houston died. New York died. Even Miami was brought to its knees by a 49 win team that just happened to be able to ruin them inside. Our new hires absolutely get a chance to prove themselves with me, because outside of the stain of their previous employers on their resumes, we know nothing about them. But if they willingly took part in all that nonsense and thought it was a good thing that needs to be duplicated...well I am going to be at philosophical loggerheads with them from Day 1.

Denver died at the hands of another smallballing team in a series their primary smallball four spent watching from a hospital bed. Golden State died at the hands of the team currently in the NBA finals and put up a much better fight than the LA Defenders or the Memphis Grizzlies, two teams clearly predicated on not going small (extenuating circumstances for the Defenders of course, a d-league shouldn't be asked to compete in the NBA playoffs). Houston died primarily because they have all of four quality players, one of which couldn't play for stretches. they were desperate enough to rely on Cisco to play heavy minutes. New York death had a lot more to do with them going away from the things that got them there in the first place and having Kidd's and Smith's respective games fall off a cliff in time for the playoffs.

again, I don't advocate smallball for this team and I doubt that PDA or Malone would be in favour of it, it's not as if Denver didn't try to go after shotblockers, they actually did get one, albeit a rather terrible player altogether. however, I do think that smallball defense is currently working better than it has before. whilst, the Pacers did push the Heat to seven games, it did feel like as if the Heat, whenever they really wanted to, could just swarm the hell out of both the Pacers bigs and smalls, just like San Antonio managed to completely take Z-Bo out of the series with the help of Matt Bonner of all people.

 

[LPKingsFan]

golden state died at the hands of the team currently in the nba finals and put up a much better fight than the la defenders or the memphis grizzlies, two teams clearly predicated on not going small (extenuating circumstances for the defenders of course, a d-league shouldn't be asked to compete in the nba playoffs).

lol

 

[Gilles]

Denver lost Gallinari before POs. They still proceeded with a great run for the rest of RS but it was on the strength of their transition game. Half-court game basically ceased to exist without Gallinari. Warriors took away transition as basically every athletic and competent defensive team can and that was Nuggets' demise.
As for Memphis they got really cold from outside for the whole postseason. When Curry finally got cold vs. SAS, Warriors died momentarily as well.

 

[jalfa]

Denver lost Gallinari before POs. They still proceeded with a great run for the rest of RS but it was on the strength of their transition game. Half-court game basically ceased to exist without Gallinari. Warriors took away transition as basically every athletic and competent defensive team can and that was Nuggets' demise.
As for Memphis they got really cold from outside for the whole postseason. When Curry finally got cold vs. SAS, Warriors died momentarily as well.

well, Memphis didn't so much just go cold in the playoffs but rather had to play against better defenses that gameplanned specifically for them and either forced tougher shots from the outside for their (few) better shooters or let their host of really bad shooters fire away at will. Curry didn't just run cold, but was defended differently as well, with Green doing most of the work, their bigs meeting him further up high and Parker being hidden on Barnes who couldn't capitalise enough on the mismatch. and yeah, Denver is probably the worst example of a smallball team in the playoffs and the most traditional of the bunch, since they have trouble scoring in the halfcourt and are pretty bad on the defensive end. they didn't get clobbered in the traditional smallball fashion inside, though, but simply suck at defending the three-point line.

and yeah, of course all this smallball stuff could be an abberation and big teams will resume their dominance once more, but there has just been too much weird stuff going on lately to totally dismiss all of it. the Mavericks winning it by playing zone defense and relying mostly on jump shooting, the Heat winning it playing smallball against a team without a single viable lowpost player. all these smallball teams making the playoffs and having at least some degree of success. one of the main reasons that the Spurs have gotten this far it seems, is that they've created a team that can beat you every which way. they can beat you going big, they can beat you going small, they'll shut down you postplay, your three-point shooting, your transition game and they can do it without the star power other teams have. that, really, is what I want the Kings to be able to do and it's why being able to go small doesn't scare me at all.

 

[Gilles]

Mavericks had two of all-time top 10 seasons in mid-range shooting from Novitzki and Terry that season. Bottom line, you've got to have a real edge and be able to create consistent offense. And, please, Duncan is over the hill, but Parker is a great creator in half-court when spacing is provided. And Ginobili is still a crafty scorer.

 

[Kingster]

The Finals observation is invalid because the progression there is simple: Miami is pathetic up front, know it, damn near got knocked out of the playoffs because of it, and out of desperation threw an all time great versatile HOF SF into the PF spot. San Antonio made their move to match the Heat. Same issue that confronted the Thudner last year. But this "small ball revolution" is pretty much restricted to teams that have 6'9" 260lb 30ppg "small" forwards that are headed to the hall someday, and then teams that choose to try to match that strategy (a mistake I generally think -- as Indiana showed you stay big and pound the smallballers to death, but they had West, while the Spurs, like the Thunder, don't have a scoring PF to counter with).

Golden State of course got their playoff traction so to speak against Denver, which kinda invalidates the thing, and is the source for some of my ?? over front office hires here. Golden State and Denver have been trying to win running uptempo smallball for 30 years now and have never won squat, for good reason. I think collectively those two franchises have the same number of Conference Finals appearances (1 combined) as the Kings themselves have had during the entire Sacramento era. Hiring multiple people raised up through broken systems is not necessarily a perfect blueprint for success.

So how do the Grizzlies fit into the picture? They have two very beefy dudes at center and pf; I'm assuming that they aren't small ball. They lost 0-4 against the Spurs. The Spurs best player is a 6'1'' skinny quick dude named Parker. Indy isn't small ball. They outbeefed Miami at center and power forward. Both have gone fishing.

To some extent, I think this small ball argument is arbitrary, so that you can define small ball however you want to suit whatever argument you want for whatever conclusion you want. If small ball really means that a team is on average smaller than the other team, then that's something you can test. If it's just some term to throw out there with no way to define it then it ultimately becomes meaningless. That said, two of the larger teams are both at home. That's not an argument for non-small ball. Or maybe it's not about small vs. large; maybe it's just about which team is better.

 

[jalfa]

Mavericks had two of all-time top 10 seasons in mid-range shooting from Novitzki and Terry that season. Bottom line, you've got to have a real edge and be able to create consistent offense. And, please, Duncan is over the hill, but Parker is a great creator in half-court when spacing is provided. And Ginobili is still a crafty scorer.

what I mean with star power: where do you think you'd have ranked them according to their position before the playoffs? Duncan is the only one of them who has a case for being the best at his position, many people might not have Parker in the top 5 of point guards and Ginobili has been really off for a while now (more of a crafty passer than scorer these days anyways). compared to a team like the Lakers (whom they'd have made mince meat out of even if Kobe had played), the Heat or the Thunder (admittedly big asterisk here) that's not all that much star power. instead, they do a lot with cuts, creative plays and the off ball movement of guys like Green, whilst being incredibly smart about the shots they let the other team have.

 

[Bricklayer]

So how do the Grizzlies fit into the picture? They have two very beefy dudes at center and pf; I'm assuming that they aren't small ball. They lost 0-4 against the Spurs. The Spurs best player is a 6'1'' skinny quick dude named Parker. Indy isn't small ball. They outbeefed Miami at center and power forward. Both have gone fishing.

To some extent, I think this small ball argument is arbitrary, so that you can define small ball however you want to suit whatever argument you want for whatever conclusion you want. If small ball really means that a team is on average smaller than the other team, then that's something you can test. If it's just some term to throw out there with no way to define it then it ultimately becomes meaningless. That said, two of the larger teams are both at home. That's not an argument for non-small ball. Or maybe it's not about small vs. large; maybe it's just about which team is better.

No.

Miami "cheats". They have LeBron. That IS the smallball argument. All the rest of the smallball arguments are ahistorical at best. Ignorant at worst. Lebron can do it because he's a freak. Nobody else can do it successfully, because they don't have that freak. Freaks buy you special privileges to play it wrong and still make up for it. In LeBron's case it means you can adopt a strategy sure to get you annihilated inside, and still hope to hang in there on the glass and avoid being physically overpowered because you have the most powerful small forward of all time on the team.

And no Indiana and Memphis are quite obviously the polar opposite of smallball. That is the point. What they are are two fairly middling playoff teams that displayed one more time the devastating impact of bigs when the playoffs roll around. Its always been that way. It still is. And those teams' bigs aren't even that great. Good, but mostly just big in an era when too many teams try to sneak by without adequate bigs. So they beat the crap out of their opponents inside until they finally met teams so superior in talent it was not enough. Meanwhile the smallball teams not sporting the freaky Lebron all got punked, as usual.

 

[Telemachus]

Nellie never had a problem pulling a big man out of the post. He'd convince Cousins he should be shooting threes.

Almost every big man that Nellie ever had ended up being traded or spending a lot of time on the bench. That was always one of the crys of Nellie fans, "if he could only find a good big man his teams would win it all". The problem was that he didn't seem to know how to use a big man properly, and ran all the ones with talent out of town.

 

[Kingster]

No.

Miami "cheats". They have LeBron. That IS the smallball argument. All the rest of the smallball arguments are ahistorical at best. Ignorant at worst. Lebron can do it because he's a freak. Nobody else can do it successfully, because they don't have that freak. Freaks buy you special privileges to play it wrong and still make up for it. In LeBron's case it means you can adopt a strategy sure to get you annihilated inside, and still hope to hang in there on the glass and avoid being physically overpowered because you have the most powerful small forward of all time on the team.

And no Indiana and Memphis are quite obviously the polar opposite of smallball. That is the point. What they are are two fairly middling playoff teams that displayed one more time the devastating impact of bigs when the playoffs roll around. Its always been that way. It still is. And those teams' bigs aren't even that great. Good, but mostly just big in an era when too many teams try to sneak by without adequate bigs. So they beat the crap out of their opponents inside until they finally met teams so superior in talent it was not enough. Meanwhile the smallball teams not sporting the freaky Lebron all got punked, as usual.

This is where I think you have it right. It's really not small vs. big. It's the team with the superior talent that trumps all. The Grizz got punked by a smaller team. If bigness was the be all, end all, then that wouldn't happen. Same with the Pacers. Why? Because LBJ gives Miami superior talent. (When you say LBJ is a "freak" it really means he's the most talented player on the planet). So maybe the focus shouldn't be on big vs. small, but instead should be on accumulating the team with superior talent. How many teams don't win that have the superior talent? I'd say a lot few than those that are bigger than the opposing team. Therefore, the focus should be on talent, not size.

 

[mac]

This is where I think you have it right. It's really not small vs. big. It's the team with the superior talent that trumps all. The Grizz got punked by a smaller team. If bigness was the be all, end all, then that wouldn't happen. Same with the Pacers. Why? Because LBJ gives Miami superior talent. (When you say LBJ is a "freak" it really means he's the most talented player on the planet). So maybe the focus shouldn't be on big vs. small, but instead should be on accumulating the team with superior talent. How many teams don't win that have the superior talent? I'd say a lot few than those that are bigger than the opposing team. Therefore, the focus should be on talent, not size.

The thing is how do you really define talent? If you're talking about individual talent you'll find that most of the stars in the league are more physically gifted than their counterparts. That usually means size or athletic ability. It's rare that a guy will be a superstar and yet be outmatched physically. The exceptions are pure PGs, and as far as I can see Steve Nash never won a championship. Size will always give you a slight advantage in that you're scoring in the paint instead of having to hit outside shots. Size also plays a big part on the defensive end, which I think is really the bigger issue. Again, good individual defenders are rarely smaller than their opponents, and if they are have long arms/ great quickness/ explosiveness. LBJ has been so effective posting up because it's usually against smaller defenders. Of course, there are so many other factors than just talent level alone, such as fit and coaching/ system.

But aside from that, the other issue is that talent is not so freely available. There's a huge gap between say Andre Iguodala and a guy like Lebron. There are all-stars and there are guys that are arguably the best ever at their positions. You get your hands on one of those and you can build your team any which way you want and still be a perennial playoff contender. FAs aren't flocking to come to SAC, and when we do get talented guys like Cousins fans want to run him out of town. So if talent was equal, I'd still go after the bigger player. You could have a starting line up that includes Wade, Nash and Chris Paul and you'd get killed on defense. Lots of talent, but ultimately size probably wins.

 

[Bricklayer]

This is where I think you have it right. It's really not small vs. big. It's the team with the superior talent that trumps all. The Grizz got punked by a smaller team. If bigness was the be all, end all, then that wouldn't happen. Same with the Pacers. Why? Because LBJ gives Miami superior talent. (When you say LBJ is a "freak" it really means he's the most talented player on the planet). So maybe the focus shouldn't be on big vs. small, but instead should be on accumulating the team with superior talent. How many teams don't win that have the superior talent? I'd say a lot few than those that are bigger than the opposing team. Therefore, the focus should be on talent, not size.

The Grizz got punked by a "smaller" team starting 2 6'11" guys, including the best PF of all time. The Spurs didn't smallball Memphis to death, they beat them at their own game as Duncan averaged 37min a night and 19.7pts 12.7rebs in the series. And then they had guardplay too as a bonus Memphis couldn't match.

And no, best talent has never been a great playoff indicator. Having the single best talent is a big one. Having the best big men another. The two things significantly overlap as the vast majority of the best talents, or the best talents who matter, win you the game inside. That includes all 4 of Parker, Duncan, Wade & Lebron.

 

[Kingster]

The thing is how do you really define talent? If you're talking about individual talent you'll find that most of the stars in the league are more physically gifted than their counterparts. That usually means size or athletic ability. It's rare that a guy will be a superstar and yet be outmatched physically. The exceptions are pure PGs, and as far as I can see Steve Nash never won a championship. Size will always give you a slight advantage in that you're scoring in the paint instead of having to hit outside shots. Size also plays a big part on the defensive end, which I think is really the bigger issue. Again, good individual defenders are rarely smaller than their opponents, and if they are have long arms/ great quickness/ explosiveness. LBJ has been so effective posting up because it's usually against smaller defenders. Of course, there are so many other factors than just talent level alone, such as fit and coaching/ system.

But aside from that, the other issue is that talent is not so freely available. There's a huge gap between say Andre Iguodala and a guy like Lebron. There are all-stars and there are guys that are arguably the best ever at their positions. You get your hands on one of those and you can build your team any which way you want and still be a perennial playoff contender. FAs aren't flocking to come to SAC, and when we do get talented guys like Cousins fans want to run him out of town. So if talent was equal, I'd still go after the bigger player. You could have a starting line up that includes Wade, Nash and Chris Paul and you'd get killed on defense. Lots of talent, but ultimately size probably wins.

That's a damned good question. I was hoping you wouldn't ask that?

I would say that size is only one component of talent. So you can be talented without size if other attributes of talent like quickness, jumping ability, shooting ability, vision, dribbling ability, and BBIQ compensate for the relatively smaller size. There are quite a few 7 footers who never make it in the league because they don't have enough of the remaining ingredients of talent mentioned above. Also, the ingredients of talent mentioned above have to be weighted differently for different positions/roles on the floor. Quickness is much more evident in point guards than centers. Height is more heavily weighted in centers than point guards. That accounts for not being able to win with five Chris Paul clones on the floor. And yes, if all other talent attributes were equal, sure I'd go for bigger player. It's the simplistic argument that bigger is (always) better that I'd argue against.

 

[swisshh]

Talent + Fit + Matching Philosophy = High level of success

Generally, a size advantage matters. The post-Webber Kings have had size at times, and they have talent, but what they never really had was fit and a matching philosophy. The roster has often been redundant, mismatched, and lacking guidance. To go along with that, the team philosophy changed every other year. It was a recipe for acquiring young talent while going nowhere with young talent.

 

[NoBonus]

When you say team philosophy as it pertains to Chris Mullin, you must be thinking all the players get flat tops!



Bring it!

 

[ParniValjak]

So while we are looking at how we can get Mullin into the fold, Jerry Sloan is appointed as an adviser by the Jazz. I know there are obvious ties to that organization but I at least would have liked to see his name discussed for the consultant role with the Kings.