BRICKLAYER.....YOU CAN DEFEND those 2002 and 2003 stats all you want or even the offense stats from last year but agian i will say this... i respect those numbers... but im a real life guy and even though those numbers are not meaningless they dont tell the whole story... the 2002 team and everyteam minus with Wells and Artest at the end of last year has been a huge def. let down...
the NBA as a whole was weak in 2002... there were only two good teams... kings lakers... the east was terrible... to the point of the west conf. finals being the nba finals... so i dont care what your numbers say the kings were as soft as could be and weak at def.... i dont remember ever think'n "WOW THE KINGS ARE THE #1 DEF. TEAM IN THE NBA THEY REALLY LOCK DOWN TEAMS" in fact i think i remember think'n wow at least we can pour in points...
nba players of the time and past said the same thing... the coaches for other teams and the kings coaches said the same thing... all the media said the same thing... so i dont care what the numbers say.ANOTHER THING BRICK... why in the world would all of us kings fans be so happy with getting def. when we have had it all along??? minus a year or two according to your numbers... why would we all sound like we never had real def. before??? could it be its because we didnt??? your blocking numbers are a weak point... keon clark was the only real shot blocker from that time... yeah right Divac, Pollard as shot blockers...ha..thats good... brick i know that wasnt your point but you did support it in one way or another...
ok so again numbers... lets think here...just like you cant judge the kings offense last year without breaking it into.... before artest... and after artest.... because if you do it as a whole it doesnt tell the story of last year...
i think all around everyone on the kings can shoot lights out... minus a very few... and all around we have had an offense that enabled our team to be much above avg. (top 3) in passing... how many times have we said about a new player to the kings... they can actually pass pretty good??? maybe our players arent steve nash but we get the most out of it...by playing a team game... who knew artest could play point??? how about garcia???
numbers dont tell all of what a team does on the floor... maybe if you actually watched the games vs just drafting all the kings players in fantasy basketball you would get what im saying...
your, um, "argument" is roughly the equivalent of me announcing well you know, I'm not really a colors guy, and I say the sky is red. Don't bother trying to convince me otherwise, I've seen it with my own eyes, and its red! Quite impressive.
Accordingly these numbers will matter little to you, but quite a bit to knowledgible basketball sorts:
Kings 2002-03:
#2 Defensive Efficiency (combo stat)
#1 Opponent FG% (.420) (perhaps the single most important stat as it is not affected by pace)
#1 Opponent 3pt% (.320)
You dribbled the ball up the court, you took a shot, your odds of that shot going in were lower playing against us than they were against the Spurs. But yeah, you saw it differently. May I suggest Lenscrafters?
And if you lost this argument against your Laker fan friends it was because you went into the battle woefully underequipped. That the Kings were a bad defensive team in our peak years is a simple point of ignorance, nothing more, nothing less. There were members of the national media who were immensely slow to catch on as always. As usual, such media types are 1-2 years out of date. Quite similar to the dimbulbs slow to catch on that the Mavs don't suck on defense anymore either. We were poor defensively when we started in '98, and so that's the rep, and the dimmer of the bulbs out there analyzing things never get past it. But the ones who were, ahem, actuallty watching, sure did. Kind of hard to miss a team making opposing teams miss shots more than any other team in the league, featuring multiple defensive studs, a huge frontline, and an All-Defensive player at OG. Kind of hard to miss the fact that the very reason we became an elite team there during that period was precisely because we added serious defense to the already potent offensive mix.
You can come in here and go winging off into lala land about the future all you like. You will find I am a groundiong influence, but its all just speculation. But half-assed revisionist history apparently learned at the knees of a bunch of dip**** Lakers fans ain't going to cut it.
