Potential Free Agent/Trade/Sign Tracker, '25-'26 Season

[Capt. Factorial]

Looking at this a bit more closely, the 2nd chance points/defensive rebounding are sort of up there near the top. That probably helps explain why Sabonis gets decent ratings on advanced defensive impact stats. It was always sort of assumed that was the reason, but it’s interesting to see some data help support that hypothesis.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. Yeah, and individual defensive ratings are flat out garbage sometimes. They have always boosted certain players high when you can see in a game that it doesn't necessarily correlate.

The thing is that rebounding is real (obviously) and it's important (obviously) and if you want to measure its impact it has to be included somewhere. At some point along the line it was apparently decided to lump rebounding into "defense". Rebounding isn't what you'd traditionally think of as "defense" so you look at a guy like Domas who isn't great at the traditional part and see good ratings and wonder why - well, it's because he's an elite rebounder. In the end, I don't know if it would make a whole lot of difference if rebounding were to be separated out as its own value - Domas' defense numbers would go down and his rebounding numbers would be like #1-3 in the league, and it would all add up to the same amount.

 

[SacTownKid]

The thing is that rebounding is real (obviously) and it's important (obviously) and if you want to measure its impact it has to be included somewhere. At some point along the line it was apparently decided to lump rebounding into "defense". Rebounding isn't what you'd traditionally think of as "defense" so you look at a guy like Domas who isn't great at the traditional part and see good ratings and wonder why - well, it's because he's an elite rebounder. In the end, I don't know if it would make a whole lot of difference if rebounding were to be separated out as its own value - Domas' defense numbers would go down and his rebounding numbers would be like #1-3 in the league, and it would all add up to the same amount.

And as they've always said, what is a defensive rebound without a stop first? Actually I think Domas has potential to be a decent defender, maybe not to the level he was at with Pacers ratings wise, but closer to that than what he is with the Kings who are going to just about tank anyones individual ratings. One of the main culprits in defensive ratings has always been KAT. He's higher for his career than Domas and you can watch games and tell that's just not quite right. Jokic is a stopper compared to both, lol. Good teams pay off so therefore it shows it's essentially a garbage stat. Team defensive rating is another story however.

 

[Padrino]

The thing is that rebounding is real (obviously) and it's important (obviously) and if you want to measure its impact it has to be included somewhere. At some point along the line it was apparently decided to lump rebounding into "defense". Rebounding isn't what you'd traditionally think of as "defense" so you look at a guy like Domas who isn't great at the traditional part and see good ratings and wonder why - well, it's because he's an elite rebounder. In the end, I don't know if it would make a whole lot of difference if rebounding were to be separated out as its own value - Domas' defense numbers would go down and his rebounding numbers would be like #1-3 in the league, and it would all add up to the same amount.

It's easy to understand the justification for rebounding's inclusion, though. The only way to end a defensive possession without the opponent scoring is by either rebound or forced/unforced turnover. Steals and deflections are important defensive metrics because they can result in change of possession, so rebounding as a defensive metric makes sense for the same reason.

If Sabonis isn't under the basket crashing the boards, the Kings sometimes struggle to secure defensive rebounds due to lack of size/length elsewhere on the roster. So even if by some miracle they manage to put together a strong defensive possession, it can result in an absolute gut punch when they don't come up with the rebound. I imagine defensive impact is easier to measure when you're not having to account for the opposition's second chance points.

 

[SacTownKid]

It's easy to understand the justification for rebounding's inclusion, though. The only way to end a defensive possession without the opponent scoring is by either rebound or forced/unforced turnover. Steals and deflections are important defensive metrics because they can result in change of possession, so rebounding as a defensive metric makes sense for the same reason.

If Sabonis isn't under the basket crashing the boards, the Kings sometimes struggle to secure defensive rebounds due to lack of size/length elsewhere on the roster. So even if by some miracle they manage to put together a strong defensive possession, it can result in an absolute gut punch when they don't come up with the rebound. I imagine defensive impact is easier to measure when you're not having to account for the opposition's second chance points.

That's true, but the question then is what's more important, dominant rebounding or FG% against? The Kings were 2nd in defensive rebounding percentage yet 22nd in defensive rating. Out of the top ten teams in DREB% the Kings were the worst defensive team by a decent margin against the average. The Cavs on the other hand were 22nd in DREB% but 8th in defensive rating. Pretty clear, defense first, rebounding later. In the end the idea is it's better to be somewhere in the middle. Good rebounding and good defense.

 

[The_Jamal]

That's true, but the question then is what's more important, dominant rebounding or FG% against? The Kings were 2nd in defensive rebounding percentage yet 22nd in defensive rating. Out of the top ten teams in DREB% the Kings were the worst defensive team by a decent margin against the average. The Cavs on the other hand were 22nd in DREB% but 8th in defensive rating. Pretty clear, defense first, rebounding later. In the end the idea is it's better to be somewhere in the middle. Good rebounding and good defense.

the kicker there though is as TW showed, it wasn't really the paint FG% that killed us, it was the frequency that we allowed 3PA and 3PT%. And it was a clear schemed plan, as Huerter let slip in the interview; touch the paint and then "try" to get out on the shooter.

That's where adding a Carter and (hopefully) keeping a LaRavia on the team can help improve things. Slow down that dribble penetration, get out on shooters, help add some weakside rim protection.

 

[coolhandluke]

Highest correlation = opponent 3PT%

Huh.

You mean giving up the corner three is not a good strategy?

 

[KayDee55]

This is the last post regarding this, i outlined everything more than once now

Yes I am really asking that. Why do you think that?

Because players tend to avoid situations in which theor scoring is hard. They tend to try to find situations that makes it easier for them to score.
Scoring under the basket against a good rim protector is not easy, which means that the presence of a good rim protector limits slashing.

Boston losing the series proves your point?

Yes, because thats real life consequences.

you’ve negated my point so let me redefine my terms

Show me where i redefined anything?
Thats what i mean, you are twisting my words.

As a stathead, do you not agree that there are Teams with guys who an are the exception to the rule.
We are lucky to live in an era with LeBron AND Jokic, and both generate insane stats.

If i negated my terms I wouldn't have wrote, that the rule is still the rule.

Lastly, I’m more than happy to broaden the dataset to include more examples. I took a very extreme approach as to how you defined an “elite team.”

So you are the one to change your examples until you are right. I see.

Withhold what? Be more specific on what you’re referencing.

Its right there. This, again, shows me that you arent really reading my posts.

And if it's that's easy to build an elite defense (meaning just have your backup C be a great rim protector). Wouldn't it just be easier to acquire that backup C vs. moving off Sabonis? I don't think you actually believe that, but that's where your logic eventually leads.

Cause its always better if your starting C can do this, too. Thats why Sabonis will always limit our defensive ability, and why Domas' weaknesses will always get exposed. In his most important games as a king, even his strengths disappeared.

What I take exception to is someone deviating from the arguing of ideas and concluding that the only reason they disagree with me is because they’re either dishonest or don’t watch basketball.

Again, i outlined my reasons and they are not you disagreeing with me. You are not reading what i am writing and thats okay, nobody has to, but dont throw that ish at me then.

Try to keep an open mind over there, fair?

I am thats why i am saying that we agree on most of the things, and you choose to argue on the most petty things.

 

[KayDee55]

Still, PG's are largely based on being able to get into the paint off pick and roll and kicking back out to shooters. Look at the Thunder with SGA who is essentially their PG and is certainly mostly score first rather than pass first. I think Carter can easily get inside and kick out since the hardest part is having a decent first step. He's got one. Now it's repetition and handles. If you play them with LaVine as well it should be able to be just fine if Domas keeps up his playmaking ways.

True. It would be very valuable to have a real playmaker on the court when Keon and Devin are on the floor together. And Lonzo fits that bill pretty nice, as he is tall enough to defend 3s, and good enough to be the the PG on offense.

 

[coolhandluke]

It's easy to understand the justification for rebounding's inclusion, though. The only way to end a defensive possession without the opponent scoring is by either rebound or forced/unforced turnover. Steals and deflections are important defensive metrics because they can result in change of possession, so rebounding as a defensive metric makes sense for the same reason.

Teams average 1.17 points per possession after a defensive rebound as compared to 1.07 after a made shot or a dead ball turnover. Defensive rebounding ends the opponent's possession and helps the team on offense as you're not going against a set defense. I shudder to think back to those days before Sabonis where we gave up offensive rebound after offensive rebound.

Of course, steals or live ball turnovers are better as teams get 1.23 points per possession out of them.

 

[twslam07]

This is the last post regarding this, i outlined everything more than once now

Not true. New questions are raised, new data points are shared, etc. This is what happens when you’re asked to defend your positions.

Because players tend to avoid situations in which theor scoring is hard. They tend to try to find situations that makes it easier for them to score.
Scoring under the basket against a good rim protector is not easy, which means that the presence of a good rim protector limits slashing.

So in this example, what is the alternative to how offensive teams combat this? Are they just swinging the ball on the perimeter back & forth? Is someone just dribbling at the top of the key and taking nothing but step back 3s? Of course not. The name of the game is to collapse the defense (whether there is an elite rim protector or not) and find the open man.

Sometimes when you collapse the defense, the defenders aren't in a position to give a quality contest in the paint/at the rim which allows the player to finish it themselves. Good rim protectors are able to limit that type of outcome and either force you to take a tough shot at the rim or pass it out. But again, collapsing the defense and getting them in rotation is the name of the game. A C/rim protector for the most part is not "stopping" that initial penetration considering they are usually not out on the perimeter.

Yes, because thats real life consequences.

I see you clipped the rest of my response, so I will ask the question again since you ignored it...

Boston had rim protection on the floor for a much higher % of the minutes. You pointed to rim protection being the reason they lost but fail to recognize they had more rim protection throughout the series. How do you come to terms with that?

Let's break it down further though...

You: "Team X lost because they didn't have enough rim protection"
Me: "But Team Y had even less rim protection than Team X. How can you point to rim protection being the reason they lost?"
You: "Because they lost"

Do you see how your logic breaks down very quickly?

Show me where i redefined anything?
Thats what i mean, you are twisting my words.

As a stathead, do you not agree that there are Teams with guys who an are the exception to the rule.
We are lucky to live in an era with LeBron AND Jokic, and both generate insane stats.

If i negated my terms I wouldn't have wrote, that the rule is still the rule.

More than happy to!

• You made the claim "The main point is, you need, whatever team you have, elite rim protection, to be an elite team in the NBA."
• You didn't formally define what you meant by "elite team" but you followed up that sentence by saying "The teams that are in the finals show that"
• That says to me that you think (at the very least) the two teams that make finals each year are considered "elite teams"
• I then looked at the two teams that made the finals over the past 10 years and it showed that 40% of those teams did not have "elite rim protection"
• So now let's circle back to your original claim. You said "you need...elite rim protection to be an elite team in the NBA." The data negates your claim since 40% of those teams do not have "elite rim protection"
• You then respond saying saying the teams I referenced have some of the best players in the game so they don't count.
• At this point, you have now "redefined" your claim on what makes an elite team. Your definition is no longer "you need...elite rim protection to be an elite team in the NBA." You now have updated your definition to be "you need...elite rim protection to be an elite team in the NBA if you don't have the best or 2nd best player in the game on your roster." You're very clearly redefining your claim by adding qualifiers. It's not even up for debate.

Now since that case is closed & shut, let's assess your updated claim "you need...elite rim protection to be an elite team in the NBA if you don't have the best or 2nd best player in the game on your roster." There are still 20% of the teams that made the finals that don't have the best or 2nd best player in the the game on their roster. Immediately, the redefined claim breaks down again. Do you want to redefine it again or would you concede that you don't actually need elite rim protection to be an elite team?

So you are the one to change your examples until you are right. I see.

To the contrary, I just showed above how your redefined claim still is not valid.

The point here is that you never formally defined what you think an "elite team" is. I took a very conservative approach and limited the data to only teams that made the finals in the past 10 years. Personally, I would define an "elite team" as a team that makes the conference finals (meaning the top 4 teams each year).

If you want to be that rigid in what you think is an "elite team" (e.g., only teams that make the finals), that's fine. Your redefined claim still does not hold water. If your definition of an "elite team" is a bit broader (like my definition), there will be even more examples of "elite teams" that don't have "elite rim protection."

No matter what your answer is here though, your redefined claim is wrong. The question we're exploring now is really how wrong your claim is (based on how your define "elite team").

Its right there. This, again, shows me that you arent really reading my posts.

So I ask you to clarify what you're referencing so I can properly respond and you refuse to give me the reference? Got it...

Cause its always better if your starting C can do this, too. Thats why Sabonis will always limit our defensive ability, and why Domas' weaknesses will always get exposed. In his most important games as a king, even his strengths disappeared.

Well of course it's always better if your starting C can protect the rim at a high level. Just like it's always better if your C is a sniper from the 3PT point. Just like it's always better if your C can dominate the glass. Just like it's always better if your C can be a very efficient, high volume scorer. Just like it's always better if your C can be an elite lob threat. Just like it's always better if your C can run an offense efficiently. Just like it's always better if your C is athletic enough to switch 1-5. This point is universally understood.

What you're not addressing is why is it okay for the Knicks to have a starting C who is a below average defender/rim protector if their backup C is a good defender/rim protector, but it's not okay for the Kings to have starting C who is a below average defender/rim protector if we can acquire a backup C that is a good defender/rim protector?

Again, i outlined my reasons and they are not you disagreeing with me. You are not reading what i am writing and thats okay, nobody has to, but dont throw that ish at me then.


I am thats why i am saying that we agree on most of the things, and you choose to argue on the most petty things.

Oh I'm definitely reading what you are writing. It's just that many of your claims are flawed.

And if the things we are arguing are petty to you, why are you taking the time to respond then?

 

[TheMobb]

I think Chris Paul could be interesting as either a backup PG, or as a lower minute starter. He’s a high IQ guy that will get us organized and will run the offense with Domas, will provide leadership and guidance, and he’s historically been a guy that makes teams better. He’s obviously not what he was but can still be a decent PG option and won’t cost much. Report came out says he wants to be close to his family in LA. If he comes in for the vet min could be a solid addition here.

 

[The_Jamal]

Teams average 1.17 points per possession after a defensive rebound as compared to 1.07 after a made shot or a dead ball turnover. Defensive rebounding ends the opponent's possession and helps the team on offense as you're not going against a set defense. I shudder to think back to those days before Sabonis where we gave up offensive rebound after offensive rebound.

Of course, steals or live ball turnovers are better as teams get 1.23 points per possession out of them.

Really cool stat and makes sense. Transition buckets are always higher PPP and getting out vs a non-set defense logically should be much easier to score on

 

[sactowndog]

I reject the premise that we're capped as a play-in team with Sabonis as our C.

We have examples of Cs that are similar to Sabonis defensively who are on teams that are not only passable on defense, but actually good on defense. It comes down to what players you put around him.

Now I'm not saying Sabonis is the easiest person to build around. He's not, but it's doable.

The problem with building around Sabonis is you have to move DDR and LaVine and that move is hard to make due to salary and or fit. I tried to see what LaVine might get on RealGM and would have to attach assets to move him.

The LaVine trade was spectacularly bad, for a number of reasons, and the fact Vivek was the driver of it, not Monte, makes more sense. If you wait to build around Sabonis once LaVine is gone then Domas is 30 and again you have no window.

Your options really are:
1) hope Zach and Sabonis build dribble hand-off chemistry and you can outscore teams

2) trade Sabonis for a restart.


I think the Kings are going to try option 1 because the reality is Perry was handed a mega crap sandwich. It’s clear the Zach trade was all Vivek and his ego will be to prove he was right. The reality is this team is in a significantly worse shape than the team Monte inherited. It is going to be 1-2 years of late lottery hell before Perry can possibly do anything. It’s why I canceled my season tickets. I’m not paying money to watch it.

 

[sactowndog]

I think Chris Paul could be interesting as either a backup PG, or as a lower minute starter. He’s a high IQ guy that will get us organized and will run the offense with Domas, will provide leadership and guidance, and he’s historically been a guy that makes teams better. He’s obviously not what he was but can still be a decent PG option and won’t cost much. Report came out says he wants to be close to his family in LA. If he comes in for the vet min could be a solid addition here.

I would like Chris Paul because we have two guys who should be point guards in Monk and Carter and Paul would be tremendous at teaching them the nuances of the position.

 

[Tetsujin]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1931180569565737078

Time for the Raptors to pivot to Domas.

 

[iowamcnabb]

Good for Giannis.

 

[TheMobb]

I would like Chris Paul because we have two guys who should be point guards in Monk and Carter and Paul would be tremendous at teaching them the nuances of the position.

Agreed. Monk needs to learn that the right play is just making a simple pass or just swinging the ball instead of going for the home run play every time.

 

[KayDee55]

Agreed. Monk needs to learn that the right play is just making a simple pass or just swinging the ball instead of going for the home run play every time.

I dont feel like monk will stay, but even when we trade him, carter and ellis, maybe even lavine can learn stuff from him
Just dont see him as THE PG solution.