Petrievision: 10 Reasons For Hope Amongst the Ashes

[Bricklayer]

I would like a little more from Salmons, Outlaw, Jimmer, and maybe a few more, also. Our team collapsed last year.

At this point I might rather most of those guys were flat out cut.

A major problem last year, that only figures to get worse this year with more new bodies wanting shots, was poor team construction, with too many shots and minutes going to players who did not fit, lacked talent, or were aging. I don't even want to see that stuff on the floor confusing everything. Tighten the rotations, pick your best 8-9 and go forward win or lose with your best guys. Of course unfortunately we're built wrong for that, which is to say we're just flat built wrong.

 

[eliczone]

At this point I might rather most of those guys were flat out cut.

A major problem last year, that only figures to get worse this year with more new bodies wanting shots, was poor team construction, with too many shots and minutes going to players who did not fit, lacked talent, or were aging. I don't even want to see that stuff on the floor confusing everything. Tighten the rotations, pick your best 8-9 and go forward win or lose with your best guys. Of course unfortunately we're built wrong for that, which is to say we're just flat built wrong.

yup, i dont understand what front office is thinking.....

 

[Spike]

This has to be a big year for Tyreke. I dont care what position Smart plays him at, now is the time for him to play his game.

There's the rub, though. It IS important where Evans plays. Putting him at SF was disastrous for both himself and the team, because it left us small at three positions, instead of one, maybe two positions.

 

[Kingster]

Last tidbit I heard recently on the radio about Tyreke was that the coaching staff said he was going to be playing the 2. Tyreke obviously doesn't want to play the 3. And Johnson isn't coming here to have Tyreke play the 3. The experiment at the one seems to be over: it failed, IT succeeded, and now another guy (Brooks) is brought in to play the 1. All the signs point to Tyreke playing the two, which imo is what should happen. The evaluation of Tyreke's perfromance this coming year should not be on the basis of playing the three, but of playing the 2. It's the 2 or bust next year for Tyreke, imo.

And as a follow-up to this post, I just heard yesterday an interview with Bobby Jackson. When asked about what position Tyreke should play, he answered: "the 2, with a little bit of the 3." Didn't mention the pg position at all.

 

[Sac.1989]

At this point I might rather most of those guys were flat out cut.

A major problem last year, that only figures to get worse this year with more new bodies wanting shots, was poor team construction, with too many shots and minutes going to players who did not fit, lacked talent, or were aging. I don't even want to see that stuff on the floor confusing everything. Tighten the rotations, pick your best 8-9 and go forward win or lose with your best guys. Of course unfortunately we're built wrong for that, which is to say we're just flat built wrong.

We do need to tighten our rotation and we are structured back court heavy but i dont mind the moves GPs made. Brooks is an asset at a cheap price which enables us to sooner rather than later figure out exactly how our backcourt will work and if we need to make a move. James Johnson is our defensive starting SF and doesnt demand shots which is brilliant. Trob will start slowly which lets JT start which isnt a bad thing and if we roll into the season full fit then we have firepower off our bench in our backcourt strength to really make a good start. Salmons & Hayes can make a difference this season, there is reason to be optimistic. Brooks will do well with us

 

[bajaden]

Last tidbit I heard recently on the radio about Tyreke was that the coaching staff said he was going to be playing the 2. Tyreke obviously doesn't want to play the 3. And Johnson isn't coming here to have Tyreke play the 3. The experiment at the one seems to be over: it failed, IT succeeded, and now another guy (Brooks) is brought in to play the 1. All the signs point to Tyreke playing the two, which imo is what should happen. The evaluation of Tyreke's perfromance this coming year should not be on the basis of playing the three, but of playing the 2. It's the 2 or bust next year for Tyreke, imo.

And as a follow-up to this post, I just heard yesterday an interview with Bobby Jackson. When asked about what position Tyreke should play, he answered: "the 2, with a little bit of the 3." Didn't mention the pg position at all.

I agree 100%! You note that I didn't say 110%. Thats because there isn't 110% of anything. But thats another discussion. Tyreke belongs at the SG position, where his size and strength still matter, and where the responsibility of having to create shots for others is reduced. In other words, Tyreke can just be Tyreke.

Personally, I'm just not into this, there's too many people that need shots crap. You can't have enough skilled players on your team, and shooting is one of those skills that you always need. But just because you can shoot the ball, doesn't mean you must shoot the ball everytime it hits your hands. Not if you have good BBIQ, and your a team player first and foremost. What makes for a good player, aside from being very skilled, is whats between your ears. I think any good player should have a little bit of ME in his game, but it shouldn't dominate his personality.

The idea that your going to turn away good, skilled players because you just don't think there's enough shots to go around is lunacy. Just give me the skilled players, and I'll figure out the rest later. There have been plenty of championship teams with multiple skilled shooters on them. Its just a matter of getting everyone on the same page for the good of the team. Good teams can have a different hero every night. And don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that every championship team doesn't need a couple of great players, but that those players will make everyone else on the team better. Unlike Melo, who makes everyone else on his team a spectator.

 

[Jkbiker]

The idea that your going to turn away good, skilled players because you just don't think there's enough shots to go around is lunacy. Just give me the skilled players, and I'll figure out the rest later. There have been plenty of championship teams with multiple skilled shooters on them. Its just a matter of getting everyone on the same page for the good of the team. Good teams can have a different hero every night. And don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that every championship team doesn't need a couple of great players, but that those players will make everyone else on the team better. Unlike Melo, who makes everyone else on his team a spectator.

I Would like to Ditto this notion, Too many good shooters not a problem, too many selfish shooters could be a problem, If you move the ball unselfishly, then you have a good chance to find an open man who if he is a skilled shooter? can knock down the open shot. I think maybe Brooks, Reke and Cuz can all find nice open shots, if they share the ball, MT,IT,maybe JJ can share the shots with JT, Trob
defending down low

 

[Jkbiker]

And as a follow-up to this post, I just heard yesterday an interview with Bobby Jackson. When asked about what position Tyreke should play, he answered: "the 2, with a little bit of the 3." Didn't mention the pg position at all.

So if this is true, then Maybe Reke will start at 2 , with JJ at the 3
when MT comes in Reke slides to the 3. So probably not a true 3 man rotation between the 2 and 3
because that would mean too many backup min for Reke at the 3, with Outlaw/Salmons the other 10min and Reke 10 min behind JJ
that would bring total min for Reke 30 min and MT to 28 min each

I guess what I am saying the extra 10 min at the 3 gets Reke and MT major min
and Brooks/IT split the PG min

 

[Kingster]

I agree 100%! You note that I didn't say 110%. Thats because there isn't 110% of anything. But thats another discussion. Tyreke belongs at the SG position, where his size and strength still matter, and where the responsibility of having to create shots for others is reduced. In other words, Tyreke can just be Tyreke.

Personally, I'm just not into this, there's too many people that need shots crap. You can't have enough skilled players on your team, and shooting is one of those skills that you always need. But just because you can shoot the ball, doesn't mean you must shoot the ball everytime it hits your hands. Not if you have good BBIQ, and your a team player first and foremost. What makes for a good player, aside from being very skilled, is whats between your ears. I think any good player should have a little bit of ME in his game, but it shouldn't dominate his personality.

The idea that your going to turn away good, skilled players because you just don't think there's enough shots to go around is lunacy. Just give me the skilled players, and I'll figure out the rest later. There have been plenty of championship teams with multiple skilled shooters on them. Its just a matter of getting everyone on the same page for the good of the team. Good teams can have a different hero every night. And don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that every championship team doesn't need a couple of great players, but that those players will make everyone else on the team better. Unlike Melo, who makes everyone else on his team a spectator.

Definitely preaching to the choir on this one, brother. There needs to be a lot more attention paid to efficiency and taking good shots and a lot less on volume of shots, which leads one to the importance of BBIQ.

 

[Bricklayer]

Having too many people that NEED shots is a huge problem, for any team (as opposed to being capable of hitting them). I would call it a subtlety, but its not subtle.

Teams can have too many "skilled" players as well, at least as skill is normally defined. The one ball principle should dominate team construction. The fact it never has for us is a prime explanation for our franchise long futility. The "skills" that translate and are universally useful are spot shooting, and to a lesser degree passing. This is why these are the skills possessed by offensive roleplayers. Check out the top teams and their ratio of "skilled" players to "unskilled" players. They never have teams full of "skilled" players, because skilled players as commonly defined are skilled WITH the ball and the #1 most important and most forgotten, rule in basketball is that there is only one ball. "Unskilled" players are universally useful, at all times. These players are the defenders, rebounders, hustle players -- you can never have too many (I suppose unless you have a team of nothing but), and their effectiveness or usefulness is never hindered by the guys around them. "Skilled" players on the other hand get dramatically more or less useful according to how many you have stuffed on the floor at once. Have one? Most important guy on the team. Have 5? They are normally tripping over each other and adding little, and two of them are basically playing the same role an "unskilled" player would play, except they are not as good at it. The "skilled" player who is willing to take a backseat, play defense, pass, take shots only when there is no other option etc. is so rare as to almost be a unicorn. Because we had the incredible good luck to once find two of them at once (Vlade and Christie) I think Sacramento fans have been chasing those unicorns ever since. And the thing is, those guys are almost always older players to boot. Asking sub-25 players to play is futile. They have names to be made, money to be put in the bank.

Our team right now rather remarkably has SEVEN players (Cousins, Reke, Thornton, Brooks, Isaiah, Salmons, Robinson) who by dint of their recent careers might hope to score 15ppg. And the only reason Jimmer wouldn't be an 8th is because he's not good enough. We balance that with 4-5 (if Honeycutt counts) guys who you could call roleplayers (JT, JJ, Garcia, Hayes, Outlaw, Honeycutt) only two of whom are guaranteed to be in the rotation. Compare that ratio to the top teams last year:

Kings 7 (Cousins, Reke, Thornton, Brooks, Isaiah, Salmons, Robinson) + Jimmer to 5 (JT, JJ, Garcia, Hayes, Outlaw) + Honeycutt
Thunder 3 (Durant, Westbrook, Harden) to 9 (Ibaka, Fisher, Cook, Perkins, Mohammed, Sefalosha, Collison, Maynor, Jackson) + Ivey
Heat 3 (James, Wade, Bosh) to 7+ (Chalmers, Cole, Miller (one of those unicorn skilled unselfish guys) Haslem, Battier, Jones, Anthony) + Pittman, Harris, Howard
Spurs 4 (Parker, Duncan, Ginobili, Jefferson/Jackson) to 7 (Neal, Blair, Splitter, Green, Diaw (one of those unicorn skilled unselfish guys), Leonard, Bonner) + Anderson
Celtics 3-4 (Pierce, Garnett, Allen) + Rondo? to 9 or so (Bradley, Pietrus, Wilcox, O'Neal, Stiesma, Dooling, Daniels, Hollins, Pavlovic) + others
Bulls 3-4 (Rose, Deng, Boozer) + Hamilton (in his delusion) to 7 (Noah, Watson, Korver, Gibson, Lucas, Brewer, Asik)

P.S. there is a reason I have been not against the idea of getting Diaw or Miller in recent years)

Our mix is all screwed up. There is no chance with Brooks to be anything but Brooks. So in order to get yourself into a reasonable structure you have to "hope" Jimmer washes out, tell Salmons to go stuff it, shut up, sit down, and shoot when told and never else, assume that TRob's summer futility is permanent, has humbled him, and that now the #5 pick who last month was barking about how he should have gone #1 over Davis is abruptly willing to just rebound and defend as a roleplayer, and tell IT to slow it down, quit shooting, and do nothing but make everybody else happy. In his contract year. That would be a huge task for Pop, who notably never puts himself in this situation. Asking Smart to pull it off...

 

[Kingster]

Having too many people that NEED shots is a huge problem, for any team (as opposed to being capable of hitting them). I would call it a subtlety, but its not subtle.

Teams can have too many "skilled" players as well, at least as skill is normally defined. The one ball principle should dominate team construction. The fact it never has for us is a prime explanation for our franchise long futility. The "skills" that translate and are universally useful are spot shooting, and to a lesser degree passing. This is why these are the skills possessed by offensive roleplayers. Check out the top teams and their ratio of "skilled" players to "unskilled" players. They never have teams full of "skilled" players, because skilled players as commonly defined are skilled WITH the ball and the #1 most important and most forgotten, rule in basketball is that there is only one ball. "Unskilled" players are universally useful, at all times. These players are the defenders, rebounders, hustle players -- you can never have too many (I suppose unless you have a team of nothing but), and their effectiveness or usefulness is never hindered by the guys around them. "Skilled" players on the other hand get dramatically more or less useful according to how many you have stuffed on the floor at once. Have one? Most important guy on the team. Have 5? They are normally tripping over each other and adding little, and two of them are basically playing the same role an "unskilled" player would play, except they are not as good at it. The "skilled" player who is willing to take a backseat, play defense, pass, take shots only when there is no other option etc. is so rare as to almost be a unicorn. Because we had the incredible good luck to once find two of them at once (Vlade and Christie) I think Sacramento fans have been chasing those unicorns ever since. And the thing is, those guys are almost always older players to boot. Asking sub-25 players to play is futile. They have names to be made, money to be put in the bank.

Our team right now rather remarkably has SEVEN players (Cousins, Reke, Thornton, Brooks, Isaiah, Salmons, Robinson) who by dint of their recent careers might hope to score 15ppg. And the only reason Jimmer wouldn't be an 8th is because he's not good enough. We balance that with 4-5 (if Honeycutt counts) guys who you could call roleplayers (JT, JJ, Garcia, Hayes, Outlaw, Honeycutt) only two of whom are guaranteed to be in the rotation. Compare that ratio to the top teams last year:

Kings 7 (Cousins, Reke, Thornton, Brooks, Isaiah, Salmons, Robinson) + Jimmer to 5 (JT, JJ, Garcia, Hayes, Outlaw) + Honeycutt
Thunder 3 (Durant, Westbrook, Harden) to 9 (Ibaka, Fisher, Cook, Perkins, Mohammed, Sefalosha, Collison, Maynor, Jackson) + Ivey
Heat 3 (James, Wade, Bosh) to 7+ (Chalmers, Cole, Miller (one of those unicorn skilled unselfish guys) Haslem, Battier, Jones, Anthony) + Pittman, Harris, Howard
Spurs 4 (Parker, Duncan, Ginobili, Jefferson/Jackson) to 7 (Neal, Blair, Splitter, Green, Diaw (one of those unicorn skilled unselfish guys), Leonard, Bonner) + Anderson
Celtics 3-4 (Pierce, Garnett, Allen) + Rondo? to 9 or so (Bradley, Pietrus, Wilcox, O'Neal, Stiesma, Dooling, Daniels, Hollins, Pavlovic) + others
Bulls 3-4 (Rose, Deng, Boozer) + Hamilton (in his delusion) to 7 (Noah, Watson, Korver, Gibson, Lucas, Brewer, Asik)

P.S. there is a reason I have been not against the idea of getting Diaw or Miller in recent years)

Our mix is all screwed up. There is no chance with Brooks to be anything but Brooks. So in order to get yourself into a reasonable structure you have to "hope" Jimmer washes out, tell Salmons to go stuff it, shut up, sit down, and shoot when told and never else, assume that TRob's summer futility is permanent, has humbled him, and that now the #5 pick who last month was barking about how he should have gone #1 over Davis is abruptly willing to just rebound and defend as a roleplayer, and tell IT to slow it down, quit shooting, and do nothing but make everybody else happy. In his contract year. That would be a huge task for Pop, who notably never puts himself in this situation. Asking Smart to pull it off...

So if that's the definition of a skilled player, then are Richard Hamilton and Kevin Martin skilled players? Can you have a skilled player whose primary offensive threat is "without the ball"? Also, does a great spot-up shooter qualify as a skilled player?

If you include Christie in the mix as a skilled player, Chalmers would certainly qualify. Or are they both skilled players willing to sacrifice some touches for the good of the team.

Lastly, what I get from your post is that you think it's more realistic to trade for more "skilled players" who are veterans that are more likely to sacrifice their game for the team, rather than a youngin who is not. Correct?

 

[DesertFox]

So if that's the definition of a skilled player, then are Richard Hamilton and Kevin Martin skilled players? Can you have a skilled player whose primary offensive threat is "without the ball"? Also, does a great spot-up shooter qualify as a skilled player?

If you include Christie in the mix as a skilled player, Chalmers would certainly qualify. Or are they both skilled players willing to sacrifice some touches for the good of the team.

Lastly, what I get from your post is that you think it's more realistic to trade for more "skilled players" who are veterans that are more likely to sacrifice their game for the team, rather than a youngin who is not. Correct?

I think high usage rate is a more appropriate term. Christie, as skilled as he was with the ball, with the Kings his usage rate was consistently around 15%. Considering he put up solid scoring and assist numbers, he was truly a great fitting and efficient player. He will make plays without taking up plays or demanding anything from the offense. Last years team alone had 9 players with usage rates above 01-02 Doug Chrisite, .01% ahead of JT.

Now a guy like Brooks, who is maybe the team's 5th (or as low as 8th) best player and had a 25% usage rate his last 2 years in the NBA, the 2nd of which he did nothing good.

The team needs guys who will be useful without the ball in their hands. MT, Brooks (and IT to an extent) are gunners but OK spot shooters at best. They need the ball, as does Cuz and Reke. That is not a winning formula.

 

[Kingster]

I think high usage rate is a more appropriate term. Christie, as skilled as he was with the ball, with the Kings his usage rate was consistently around 15%. Considering he put up solid scoring and assist numbers, he was truly a great fitting and efficient player. He will make plays without taking up plays or demanding anything from the offense. Last years team alone had 9 players with usage rates above 01-02 Doug Chrisite, .01% ahead of JT.

Now a guy like Brooks, who is maybe the team's 5th (or as low as 8th) best player and had a 25% usage rate his last 2 years in the NBA, the 2nd of which he did nothing good.

The team needs guys who will be useful without the ball in their hands. MT, Brooks (and IT to an extent) are gunners but OK spot shooters at best. They need the ball, as does Cuz and Reke. That is not a winning formula.

What is the definition of "usage rate"?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

What is the definition of "usage rate"?

It's the percentage of team plays "used" by the player while on the floor. I believe the definition of "used" here encompasses FGAs (made or not), getting fouled and going to the line, and TOs. Basically if you were the last guy to touch the ball on offense, you "used" that possession.

As a point of reference, among guys who played 1500+ minutes last year Kobe Bryant led the league in USG% with 35.7. He was followed by the usual suspects of Westbrook, LeBron, Carmelo, Durant, Wade, and D-Will, with Cousins ninth in the league at 29.7. The next highest Kings player was Tyreke at 44th (23.8). Bottom of the league was Kendrick Perkins at 11.1, followed by DeAndre Jordan, Tyson Chandler, Haslem, Fisher. As a direct reference to Christie, Kawhi Leonard was at 14.5 last year.

 

[Kingster]

It's the percentage of team plays "used" by the player while on the floor. I believe the definition of "used" here encompasses FGAs (made or not), getting fouled and going to the line, and TOs. Basically if you were the last guy to touch the ball on offense, you "used" that possession.

As a point of reference, among guys who played 1500+ minutes last year Kobe Bryant led the league in USG% with 35.7. He was followed by the usual suspects of Westbrook, LeBron, Carmelo, Durant, Wade, and D-Will, with Cousins ninth in the league at 29.7. The next highest Kings player was Tyreke at 44th (23.8). Bottom of the league was Kendrick Perkins at 11.1, followed by DeAndre Jordan, Tyson Chandler, Haslem, Fisher. As a direct reference to Christie, Kawhi Leonard was at 14.5 last year.

Much appreciated! Never heard of this stat before. Gives much more clarity, definition, and objectivity to the fuzziness of "ball dominant".

 

[Tyndel]

Much appreciated! Never heard of this stat before. Gives much more clarity, definition, and objectivity to the fuzziness of "ball dominant".

A player can be Ball dominant run down the shot clock on every play and hand it off at 3 forcing someone else to jack up a shot. I understand usage rate to be that final shot or attempt to get a shot that results in a turnover foul or miss/make. On our team MT isn't as ball dominant however he does take the last action on quite a few plays as a shooter either catch and shoot or catch dibble/drive and shoot this is why he actually works next to a ball dominant player who can pass out after breaking the defense... This is a role performed by pure shooters on a lot of teams.

Reke and Cousins are both ball dominant and high usage players and so they need a strict offensive system to train them when to identify when to go against their hero instinct and pass it to the open man. JT is neither high usage or Ball dominant and while he has the ability to work from either high post and block to facilitate and either get a shot or pass he mostly just finishes what is there(a quick hook from the low block or short shot from the elbow). That's why he falls into the role of a non demanding role player.

There is a lot of overlap and of course I could be misunderstanding it all. We have fielded a team with too many ball dominant players in my opinion and balancing our bench minutes would make our team run much better. unfortunately much of the time its put your best players in your starting lineup regardless of what comes off the bench or how they fit.

 

[Kingster]

A player can be Ball dominant run down the shot clock on every play and hand it off at 3 forcing someone else to jack up a shot. I understand usage rate to be that final shot or attempt to get a shot that results in a turnover foul or miss/make. On our team MT isn't as ball dominant however he does take the last action on quite a few plays as a shooter either catch and shoot or catch dibble/drive and shoot this is why he actually works next to a ball dominant player who can pass out after breaking the defense... This is a role performed by pure shooters on a lot of teams.

Reke and Cousins are both ball dominant and high usage players and so they need a strict offensive system to train them when to identify when to go against their hero instinct and pass it to the open man. JT is neither high usage or Ball dominant and while he has the ability to work from either high post and block to facilitate and either get a shot or pass he mostly just finishes what is there(a quick hook from the low block or short shot from the elbow). That's why he falls into the role of a non demanding role player.

There is a lot of overlap and of course I could be misunderstanding it all. We have fielded a team with too many ball dominant players in my opinion and balancing our bench minutes would make our team run much better. unfortunately much of the time its put your best players in your starting lineup regardless of what comes off the bench or how they fit.

I understand. It's not a perfect stat for ball dominance. Still, it has some clarity to it, which the term "ball dominance" doesn't seem to have. Personally, I'd rather think in terms of dribbling the ball and going nowhere - that's "ball dominance" with no purpose good effect. That's the worst sort ball "stickiness".

 

[Bricklayer]

Much appreciated! Never heard of this stat before. Gives much more clarity, definition, and objectivity to the fuzziness of "ball dominant".

Tyndel touched on the limitations. Usage rate does tell you something, but not really who is a ball dominant, except through indirect implication. If Player A dribbles down the court, and dribbles the ball around in circles for 20 seconds, dribbles to the right, dribbles to the left, feints, dodges, weaves, and then 20 seconds later dumps the ball to Player B, who with 4 seconds to go takes 3 dribbles to the right and launches a shot, the Usage Rate stat would try to tell you that Player B was the guy who used up that possession. As such it makes no distinction between a Dirk or an A.I. for instance, when there is a huge difference in the amount of time they spend with the ball.

Still, it is a stat that tells you quite a bit. It just can't tell you if a guy needs the ball in his hands, or merely needs his shots. It for instance can;t tell you that Salmons needs the ball in his hands, and will just register that he had a low usage rate last season. And it won't tell you how/why usg rates are what they are. Kobe had a 35.7 usg rate. You trade for a second Kobe and pair them up they might both only score a 29.0 as they steal from each other. But trade them and they are still guys who will put up a 35.7 if given a chance.

Using usage rate to fleshout my stats/argument from above, let me compare the usage rates of the Kings, both last year, and in the case of the college guys and Brooks what they did in college or their last NBA season.

Kings USG 11-12, w/notes about recent USG rates
Cousins 29.7
Evans 23.8 (09-10 = 26.2, 08-09 = 25.3)
Thornton 23.4 (09-10 = 25.3, 10-11 = 24.9)
Williams 22.2
Fredette 20.4 (10-11 college usage = 37.8)
Thomas 19.8 (10-11 college usage = 26.2)
Outlaw 18.7
Greene 18.0
Hickson 16.0 (10-11= 25.5, after leaving Sac 11-12 = 21.6)
Thompson 15.5
Whiteside 14.8
Garcia 14.4
Salmons 14.2 (last season before joining Kings, 10-11 = 20.9)
Honeycutt 13.9
Hayes 9.9

12-13 so far, add TRob, Brooks, Johnson, subtract Greene, Whiteside, Hickson, Williams
Add
Robinson 30.0 (11-12 college)
Brooks 25.7 (10-11 = 25.7, 09-10 = 25.7)
Johnson 20.2 (Raps)

Subtract
Williams 22.2
Greene 18.0
Hickson 16.0 (10-11= 25.5, after leaving Sac 11-12 = 21.6)
Whiteside 14.8

In other words if anything we've made the situation more acute. You figure you have no fewer than 7 guys who are used to USG rates of 25 or more (Cousins, Reke, Thornton, Brooks, IT, Jimmer and TRob). Two more guys at SF who you have been hoping to be roleplayers but who are used to Usg rates of 20. And the thing is, this isn't a situation where any of those guys but Jimmer is going to be a limited minute guy. You are talking about virtually the entire rotation. The only one of our top 7-8 guys who has willingly hung out in the mid-teen roleplayer USG rate areas is JT. Every single other player in our rotation can be expected to look for his own shot, because that is what they are used to doing.

This is probably our main rotation, I don't know how it will work with 4 guards all needing minutes, but 3 bigs, 4 guards, 2 SFs = 9 guys already:

Robinson 30.0 (11-12 college)
Cousins 29.7
Brooks 25.7 (10-11 = 25.7, 09-10 = 25.7)
Evans 23.8 (09-10 = 26.2, 08-09 = 25.3)
Thornton 23.4 (09-10 = 25.3, 10-11 = 24.9)
Johnson 20.2 (Raps)
Thomas 19.8 (10-11 college usage = 26.2)
Thompson 15.5
Salmons 14.2 (last season before joining Kings, 10-11 = 20.9)

 

[Bricklayer]

Meanwhile, the Thunder are notoriously highly stratified, but look at their structure (a team we are supposed to be emulating):
Thunder Rotation USG
Westbrook 32.7
Durant 31.3
Harden 21.6
Ibaka 15.7
Cook 14.7
Fisher 14.3
Perkins 11.1
Sefalosha 10.6
Collison 10.0

or how about a midrange winner like Memphis (distorted a bit by Randolph's injury)?
Grizzlies Rotation USG
Gay 25.1
Mayo 23.9
Randolph 22.4
Speights 20.5 (lower if Randolph not hurt)
Gasol 19.1
Allen 18.4
Conley 18.3 (the limitation of the usage stat shows here)
Cunningham 13.6
Pondexter 13.2

Chicago (also distorted by Rose's injuries)
Rose 30.5
Lucas/Watson 26.0/22.8 (obviously nowehre near as high if rose is healthy)
Hamilton 24.5 (28 games)
Boozer 23.8
Deng 19.8
Gibson 18.6
Noah 15.8
Korver 15.3
Brewer 15.3
Asik 12.6


Wwe are comically top heavy, and are going to have to dramaticlaly tame, and make unhappy, half the rotation if we want to have a reasonable build.

 

[funkykingston]

Well, I think it's clear that Robinson's role at the NBA level will NOT be "go-to-guy" so his high college usage rate doesn't concern me much. My real hope was that we got a poor man's Blake Griffin but the reality is that Robinson is looking like more of a project who will likely earn his minutes early on as an off the bench rebounder.

That said, this is a roster heavy on guys that want the ball in their hands. And that's actually NOT covered by the usage rate. Sure Cousins, Jimmer, Thornton and Johnson all want their touches/shots but more importantly we have Evans, Thomas, Brooks and Salmons as guys that are used to being ball dominant and controlling the action. Sure guys aren't going to get the number of shots they want and that's an issue but what concerns me the most is the highly related question of whether or not this team moves the ball.

Are certain guys going to accept taking less shots for the good of the team or is it going to lead to highly selfish play?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Kings USG 11-12, w/notes about recent USG rates
Cousins 29.7
Evans 23.8 (09-10 = 26.2, 08-09 = 25.3)
Thornton 23.4 (09-10 = 25.3, 10-11 = 24.9)
Williams 22.2
Fredette 20.4 (10-11 college usage = 37.8)
Thomas 19.8 (10-11 college usage = 26.2)
Outlaw 18.7
Greene 18.0
Hickson 16.0 (10-11= 25.5, after leaving Sac 11-12 = 21.6)
Thompson 15.5
Whiteside 14.8
Garcia 14.4
Salmons 14.2 (last season before joining Kings, 10-11 = 20.9)
Honeycutt 13.9
Hayes 9.9

The average USG% is 20.0 by definition. So last year when we were playing our best (at the end of the season) we had four rotation guys who had above-average rates.

This is probably our main rotation, I don't know how it will work with 4 guards all needing minutes, but 3 bigs, 4 guards, 2 SFs = 9 guys already:

Robinson 30.0 (11-12 college)
Cousins 29.7
Brooks 25.7 (10-11 = 25.7, 09-10 = 25.7)
Evans 23.8 (09-10 = 26.2, 08-09 = 25.3)
Thornton 23.4 (09-10 = 25.3, 10-11 = 24.9)
Johnson 20.2 (Raps)
Thomas 19.8 (10-11 college usage = 26.2)
Thompson 15.5
Salmons 14.2 (last season before joining Kings, 10-11 = 20.9)

We've already seen that IT and Jimmer (especially Jimmer) had significant drops in their USG% from college. I see no reason to think (especially given Summer League performances) that Robinson will come anywhere close to 30% next year. He's probably a lot more like a 20% guy. Johnson probably takes on more of a defensive role as well, and I wouldn't be surprised to see his USG% drop toward like 17%.

Brooks will probably have to drop a bit. Then again, his last two teams haven't exactly been stacked with offensive talent so some of his high usage may be from needing to shoulder the load on his own. Outside of Kevin Martin, the only high usage guys he had in those last two years in Houston were Luis Scola (pushed into high usage by the Yao injury) and Carl Landry. During the years when Yao and McGrady were around, Brooks' USG% was around 22-23. Phoenix was even worse, with only a 34-y.o. Vince Carter to eat up shots. I expect he'll drop to 22 or lower.

I'd guess next year would look something like this:
Cousins 28 (down a bit from reduced TOs)
Evans 24 (equal)
Brooks 22 (down a bit)
Thornton 22 (down a bit)
Robinson 20 (down from college)
Thomas 20 (equal)
Johnson 17 (down a bit)
Thompson 15 (equal)
Salmons 15 (equal)

USG% works itself out (obviously). No matter how "top heavy" a team is there's only one ball to go around (as they say) and the numbers average out to 20.0 (weighted by minutes played). THe only question is whether guys will be "unhappy" about their lower rates. If they buy into a team concept, why should they be? And furthermore, a lower USG% would seem likely (here I haven't done any stats) to result in higher percentage shots overall, which should lead to more wins, and more happiness in the locker room.

 

[Bricklayer]

Oh, obviously TRob is not going to be sitting on a 30 or anything close this season. That wasn't the point. The point was that is what all these guys are accustomed to getting. That's why we are a laughstock with commentators across the NBA right now. Last year we had at least 4 players (Jimmer, Hickson, Salmons and Reke + Thornton and Isaiah were not always comfortable either ) who struggled with and were clearly uncomfortable adjusting to lower usage rates. And that is 100% common. Its not just a Kings thing. You ask a guy used to putting up a 25 USG to suddenly put up a 20, and it throws him out of his comfort zone. And this year we've got a fresh crop of guys to make uncomfortable ratehr than just going out and hiring a guy who nows how to put up a usg rate of 12 or 15 and be happy with it.

My own mix/solution would be a little different than yours, but the same idea. I have seen too much Brooks to plan on getting him under 23, and even there he will fight it. I refuse to hold back Cousins for any of his teamamtes, and stick him at 30. I know Thornton won't be happy sinking any further than 23, but hope that may that can be ameliorated by him getting fewer minutes off the bench rahter than fewer shots when he's in. The main problem being that none of the guys who replace him will be taking many fewer. I impose on Thomas and drop him back to 18.5. That's a waste, but he's caught in a numbers game. I am actually forced to hope that our #5 pick is not ready and tameable so I have him play the Favors roleplayer role at 18 himself. But it is all such an unnatural stretch. We would be immensely better off if 2 or 3 of our rotation 20s were replaced with Kyle Korvers Nick Collisons, and Thabo Seflaoshas. Those guys are infinitely more valuable than all our stacked talent because they play their roles, and play them well, without ever once worrying about the shot they just did not get.

Cousins 34min (29.5)/ Hayes 10min (9.0)
Thomps 26min (15.0)/ TRob 22min (18.5)
Johnson 26min (18.0)/ Salms 18min (15.5)
Evans 34min (24.5) / Thorn 30min (23.0)
Brooks 26min (23.0) / Thom 22min (18.0)

I'm taking dumps all over various guys there, even inserted Hayes to try to give us extra shots, am still lacking two minutes to be accounted for by somebody, and I'm still over 300 USG points high (240min x 20.0 usg = 4800, I'm at 5137 there).

Its like hiring a bunch of models to handle every job in your office. Can they do them? Oh, probably. But not very well in many cases. And the one who has to play janitor is going to be pissed at you. You'd be far better off hiring a real secretary and real janitor.

 

[Kingster]

Tyndel touched on the limitations. Usage rate does tell you something, but not really who is a ball dominant, except through indirect implication. If Player A dribbles down the court, and dribbles the ball around in circles for 20 seconds, dribbles to the right, dribbles to the left, feints, dodges, weaves, and then 20 seconds later dumps the ball to Player B, who with 4 seconds to go takes 3 dribbles to the right and launches a shot, the Usage Rate stat would try to tell you that Player B was the guy who used up that possession. As such it makes no distinction between a Dirk or an A.I. for instance, when there is a huge difference in the amount of time they spend with the ball.

Still, it is a stat that tells you quite a bit. It just can't tell you if a guy needs the ball in his hands, or merely needs his shots. It for instance can;t tell you that Salmons needs the ball in his hands, and will just register that he had a low usage rate last season. And it won't tell you how/why usg rates are what they are. Kobe had a 35.7 usg rate. You trade for a second Kobe and pair them up they might both only score a 29.0 as they steal from each other. But trade them and they are still guys who will put up a 35.7 if given a chance.

Using usage rate to fleshout my stats/argument from above, let me compare the usage rates of the Kings, both last year, and in the case of the college guys and Brooks what they did in college or their last NBA season.

Kings USG 11-12, w/notes about recent USG rates
Cousins 29.7
Evans 23.8 (09-10 = 26.2, 08-09 = 25.3)
Thornton 23.4 (09-10 = 25.3, 10-11 = 24.9)
Williams 22.2
Fredette 20.4 (10-11 college usage = 37.8)
Thomas 19.8 (10-11 college usage = 26.2)
Outlaw 18.7
Greene 18.0
Hickson 16.0 (10-11= 25.5, after leaving Sac 11-12 = 21.6)
Thompson 15.5
Whiteside 14.8
Garcia 14.4
Salmons 14.2 (last season before joining Kings, 10-11 = 20.9)
Honeycutt 13.9
Hayes 9.9

12-13 so far, add TRob, Brooks, Johnson, subtract Greene, Whiteside, Hickson, Williams
Add
Robinson 30.0 (11-12 college)
Brooks 25.7 (10-11 = 25.7, 09-10 = 25.7)
Johnson 20.2 (Raps)

Subtract
Williams 22.2
Greene 18.0
Hickson 16.0 (10-11= 25.5, after leaving Sac 11-12 = 21.6)
Whiteside 14.8

In other words if anything we've made the situation more acute. You figure you have no fewer than 7 guys who are used to USG rates of 25 or more (Cousins, Reke, Thornton, Brooks, IT, Jimmer and TRob). Two more guys at SF who you have been hoping to be roleplayers but who are used to Usg rates of 20. And the thing is, this isn't a situation where any of those guys but Jimmer is going to be a limited minute guy. You are talking about virtually the entire rotation. The only one of our top 7-8 guys who has willingly hung out in the mid-teen roleplayer USG rate areas is JT. Every single other player in our rotation can be expected to look for his own shot, because that is what they are used to doing.

This is probably our main rotation, I don't know how it will work with 4 guards all needing minutes, but 3 bigs, 4 guards, 2 SFs = 9 guys already:

Robinson 30.0 (11-12 college)
Cousins 29.7
Brooks 25.7 (10-11 = 25.7, 09-10 = 25.7)
Evans 23.8 (09-10 = 26.2, 08-09 = 25.3)
Thornton 23.4 (09-10 = 25.3, 10-11 = 24.9)
Johnson 20.2 (Raps)
Thomas 19.8 (10-11 college usage = 26.2)
Thompson 15.5
Salmons 14.2 (last season before joining Kings, 10-11 = 20.9)

You're losing me. I only see Cousins above 25 usage last year. Evans I can see being above 25 because last year his usage rate was unaturally forced down by playing at the 3, so I think his usage is more in the 09-10 season for this coming year if he plays SG. I don't accept using college years in the stat. I think we can all agree that the college stats can easily be skewed upward because the college star is going to get the ball more in his hands relative to his non-star teamates, whereas in the NBA his stardom isn't going to be relatively as high because he's playing with a lot of college stars.

Salmons definitely shows the limitations of the usage rate at 14.6.

I don't think Robinson's usage rate or ball dominance is going to be anywhere close to that of college. I would expect he'd be around the Thompson area in both.

To me the ball dominant guys are mostly Cousins, Tyreke and Salmons. Cousins is ball dominant because the offense is geared around him; he gets a ton of touches. Also, because he can dribble the well, he starts a lot of plays rather than just finishes them. Tyreke and Salmons are by necessity more ball dominant because they need a rythm of dribbling to take a shot and/or their games are primarily oriented around driving the basketball. The more your game is oriented around driving the ball or being a rhythm shooter, it's axiomatic that the more ball dominant you are. IT can go either way. He can rise up and take a 3 point shot without a dribble, or he can dribble drive to the basket or do pick and rolls, in which case he does need the ball to do those things. Thornton can also go either way - he can rise up to get a shot without a dribble, or penetrate to the basket to score. Despite the usage rates for Thornton and IT, I'd say that IT is somewhat more ball dominant, if only because as a coach you want him to have the ball in his hands making plays, whereas with Thornton you want him doing more of finishing plays. With Johnson, the new 3, everything I've heard leads me to believe that he's not ball dominant and has a low usage rate. So overall, I don't see a big problem with this team. Now if you play Cousins, Tyreke, Salmons, IT, and Thornton at the same time, yes, there would be a problem, but I don't think that's a lineup we'll see too often.