Reality Check - Who on the Kings is a bona-fide NBA starter?

[Spike]

Tyreke and DMC might be "better" than Thornton, but neither of them has shown that they can make a basket in crunchtime, despite plenty of opportunities.

Like this one?

or this one?

How about this game for DeMarcus? Do you remember, 28/8/6 with 13 in the 4th quarter?

Not bad for a bunch of kids. But hey, if you want to discount those games because it isn't against "elite" competition, then I'm no longer feeding the troll.

Edit: I didn't include the game vs. Memphis, in case you wanted to contest a "lucky shot" as well.

 

[IfAt1st]

Hey, thanks for the highlights, and posting them as links -those're always fun to watch.
(BTW - both of Tyreke's were during his rookie campaign. He was much worse last year. I'm surprised you didn't show Tyreke's "clutch" 3/4-court winning shot from last year)

But if you are seriously suggesting that either of them had good % of success in crunchtime.... well, I will disagree to the point of guessing that you didn't watch a lot of games last year.
I wonder if YouTube has the endless parade of TO's that both of them offered us last year at crucial times?

Look, I'm one of Demarcus's bigger fans on here - I can enjoy a game just watching him stumble and falter, he's that enjoyable for me to watch.
But to suggest that the guy wasn't horrendously ineffective at scoring last year in crunchtime is simply not facing the facts.
I'm expecting he will get better this year.

 

[Padrino]

Hey, thanks for the highlights, and posting them as links -those're always fun to watch.
(BTW - both of Tyreke's were during his rookie campaign. He was much worse last year. I'm surprised you didn't show Tyreke's "clutch" 3/4-court winning shot from last year)

But if you are seriously suggesting that either of them had good % of success in crunchtime.... well, I will disagree to the point of guessing that you didn't watch a lot of games last year.
I wonder if YouTube has the endless parade of TO's that both of them offered us last year at crucial times?

Look, I'm one of Demarcus's bigger fans on here - I can enjoy a game just watching him stumble and falter, he's that enjoyable for me to watch.
But to suggest that the guy wasn't horrendously ineffective at scoring last year in crunchtime is simply not facing the facts.
I'm expecting he will get better this year.

that may be, but does it matter? is it relevant to anything at all? how many first year players actually are effective in crunch time?! your criteria for what constitutes a "bona-fide nba starter" is fundamentally flawed and ultimately useless. it presupposes far too much in order to say so very little...

it would be infinitely more productive to talk about how a young player improves upon their crunch time play rather than decrying them as unworthy simply because they haven't yet developed the mental constitution typical of nba veterans...

i mean, really, what is it you're trying to prove here? you seem to be just one of many posters masking an anti-'reke agenda behind some crazed theory of nba success. how's that for a "reality check"?

 

[Warhawk]

In reading this thread a quote comes to mind:

Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

 

[mac]

that may be, but does it matter? is it relevant to anything at all? how many first year players actually are effective in crunch time?! your criteria for what constitutes a "bona-fide nba starter" is fundamentally flawed and ultimately useless. it presupposes far too much in order to say so very little...

it would be infinitely more productive to talk about how a young player improves upon their crunch time play rather than decrying them as unworthy simply because they haven't yet developed the mental constitution typical of nba veterans...

i mean, really, what is it you're trying to prove here? you seem to be just one of many posters masking an anti-'reke agenda behind some crazed theory of nba success. how's that for a "reality check"?

exactly. he either doesn't understand or is choosing to ignore the concept of developing young players. Another thing that must be emphasized is that many of us would be thrilled if we got the 8th seed. Nobody in their right mind is calling our current team championship worthy NOW. So what is the point of this thread? To point out that despite our roster changes we aren't the 08 Boston celtics? to bash tyreke and belittle anything he's accomplished? I mean .. he essentially said we'd be better off with chauncey billups instead of Evans.

So was Brandon Roy a nba level starter? apparently not according to his dalembert argument. ridiculous.

 

[TehSwimGuy]

That's a stupid way to define a successful starter. Then by your definition, Kobe isn't a starter. There was a Yahoo! Article (and on ESPN) about how Kobe's percentages in crunch time are awful. When it comes to game winning shots in crunchtime, he hits an incredibly low percentage of them. There's no real definition of what is a "crunchtime success". So I'd rather have this talent build themselves up, though personally I would have a coach like Adelman guiding them, then have a bunch of the old vets from back when. Because let's face it, most of the veterans that have been around...you can't base a franchise off of them anymore. They're getting old. I'm kind of glad SAC started rebuilding when they did, because almost every other franchise is going to hit a rebuilding period about the same time when their key players are gone, and the Kings will have a youthful, proven squad.

 

[spudfan]

According to http://82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm the league wide percentage for game winning shots is .298 Kobe comes in at .250, I guess he isn't good with the game on the line either. Someone better take his starting (and closing) spot away.

 

[mac]

lets just look at the lakers. only gasol, kobe, odom fit your ridiculous description. oh wait, odom didn't start. so one of the best nba teams only had 2 nba level sure starters. Or is Derek fisher better than Tyreke now? And guess what, people said kobe and pau choked in 08 against the celts, but the same players won the next 2 years! also, you know why lamar odom doesn't seem to mishandle the ball or screw up in crunch time? Because he doesn't have the ball to begin with - its in the hands of Kobe F. Bryant.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Edit: I didn't include the game vs. Memphis, in case you wanted to contest a "lucky shot" as well.

Donté didn't think it was lucky!

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

WTF?

I'm kinda baffled, under what criteria would you lock the thread?

Having an unpopular opinion. That doesn't go over too well around these parts sometimes.

 

[Telemachus]

Having an unpopular opinion. That doesn't go over too well around these parts sometimes.

This isn't about having an unpopular opinion. This is about setting a criteria for what is an NBA starter in a way that would make every GM around the league laugh. It is an unrealistic point of view that would give us a league full of bench players and more than a few teams with NO STARTERS whatsoever.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

This isn't about having an unpopular opinion. This is about setting a criteria for what is an NBA starter in a way that would make every GM around the league laugh. It is an unrealistic point of view that would give us a league full of bench players and more than a few teams with NO STARTERS whatsoever.

Unpopular/unrealistic/uneducated, whatever. For all intents and purposes they're the same thing insofar as the type of negative reactions they draw.

 

[Telemachus]

Unpopular/unrealistic/uneducated, whatever. For all intents and purposes they're the same thing insofar as the type of negative reactions they draw.

At least with "unpopular" you can have a constructive conversation. With "unrealistic" and "uneducated" that is much more difficult to accomplish. With the latter having much more to do with whoever you are dealing with (some people just haven't done the research, while others are content to stay uneducated).

 

[bajaden]

Having an unpopular opinion. That doesn't go over too well around these parts sometimes.

I would say that a lot of us have upopular opinions with someone at some point. This entire discussion is an exercise in futility in my opinion and thats why I didn't get involved in it. I'm getting too old to beat my head against a wall of less than subjective bias. And thats probably an unpopular opinion.

 

[Spike]

In reading this thread a quote comes to mind:

I prefer Global Thermonuclear War, thank you very much.

 

[Spike]

But if you are seriously suggesting that either of them had good % of success in crunchtime.... well, I will disagree to the point of guessing that you didn't watch a lot of games last year.

So to recap:
Stats that claim our players are top 15 players can't be used to refute your claim that current players are legitimate starters.
An example of a championship team with reflections of how those players were as rookies doesn't demonstrate that growth can actually happen with our players.
When you change the argument and say that the kids can't perform in crunch time, you refute the concrete examples given, and change the argument again to a percentage based argument. (Which has since been refuted.)

I am more patient than most, but we're done here. Feel free to claim victory if you wish. Mazel Tov.

 

[mac]

I must add though, mission troll largely successful.

 

[LWP777]

I actually agree with a lot of what the OP says. I also find it hilarious that he is being called a "troll" simply because he has a negative take on the 2011-12 Sacramento Kings.

I made a similar point in another thread about the makeup of this roster. Everybody is going nuts because we're so "deep" or more "talented" than we've been in a long time, but are we really? We have guys who largely put up stats on terrible or below average teams -- Reke, DMC, Salmons, JJ, Thornton, Hayes, etc. Of course there are plenty of "non NBA starters" on winning teams, but the point is that most winning teams have at least 2-3 solid NBA starters (based on OP's parameters).

Now if this group excels and proves me wrong, then great, I'll be happy about that. What are all the people in this thread who called the OP a troll going to say if they win another 20 games this year?

 

[LWP777]

Having an unpopular opinion. That doesn't go over too well around these parts sometimes.

Exactly. What is the point of having a forum if you cannot engage in spirited debate, even if it's a controversial or unpopular opinion. OP did not come across as a troll. He was not verbally abusive or vulgar in any way. He supported his argument with his facts and opinions. He's acted like a gentlemen despite being attacked by the Kings fanboys. If you don't like his point of view or his thread then DON'T READ IT AND/OR POST IN IT. Simple.

 

[Kingsguy881]

Exactly. What is the point of having a forum if you cannot engage in spirited debate, even if it's a controversial or unpopular opinion. OP did not come across as a troll. He was not verbally abusive or vulgar in any way. He supported his argument with his facts and opinions. He's acted like a gentlemen despite being attacked by the Kings fanboys. If you don't like his point of view or his thread then DON'T READ IT AND/OR POST IN IT. Simple.

And here you are trolling on 'kings fanboys'. Take the opportunity while you have it brutha. It's not too often stupid threads like this pop up where you can pop in and be a Richard.

 

[Bricklayer]

Exactly. What is the point of having a forum if you cannot engage in spirited debate, even if it's a controversial or unpopular opinion. OP did not come across as a troll. He was not verbally abusive or vulgar in any way. He supported his argument with his facts and opinions. He's acted like a gentlemen despite being attacked by the Kings fanboys. If you don't like his point of view or his thread then DON'T READ IT AND/OR POST IN IT. Simple.

OP is a classic troll actually. Vulgar and abusive isn't troll, its moron. Trolls like to stir the pot. In this case OP isn't even a fan of the team. He had one player he liked. It would be a real chore to find anything else positive he has ever said about anyone associated with the franchise without a backdoor snark. this thread of course was jsut a thinkly veiled attempt to insult our top polayer,s who he slimes at every opportunity. Classic trolly stuff. I left this open purely to let him get slapped around a bit and see if he would present anything to realy talk about in response.. Now the points having been made that needed to be made for the most part, this thread has exceeded its born on date. A thread that starts out with such a moronic pretense has very little shot at ever morphing into anything good, and this didn't. So I'll go start a more rational one that might inspire better commentary.