Season analysis from Kayte:

[bajaden]

http://fullcourtpress.kingsconnect.com/archives/6141

I haven't seen this posted yet, so here it is. If it has been posted, then I apologize...I happen to respect Kayte's opinion and think she makes some good points..

 

[fnordius]

I think she does, and she says some hard things pretty tactfully.

I don't agree with her vision of what we need in a guard all that much, though. She wants a guy who shoots a lot of 3s, despite our having >37% bombers in Casspi, Garcia, Greene, Nocioni and Udrih. How many 3-shooters does a team need? PW has been doing well with the tandem combo guard thing, I see no reason to try to get him to change that. If all we needed were a fine 3-point shooter in the backcourt with Evans, then it was a big mistake to let Kevin go. But I don't think that it was.

Other than that, I'm happy to generally agree with her appraisal of the team.

 

[Prince_XY]

Is it Kayte's looks or am I missing something here? I can see a lot of praises from the comments ( on the same site - full court press ) as if Kayte really made a good job on this article.

IMO, this player-by-player breakdown is far from being a "good job" if there is not that much emphasis on the 7-footer center Hawes' needing to improve in defense and rebounding. How could Kayte missed that when all season-long fans had pointed that out as the primary glaring problem in our starting center and that most fans wants the front office to draft, trade, or get from free agency a legit BIG?

Is Kayte surrendered and that she thinks it is futile to discuss those deficiencies in Hawes' game because she's convinced Hawes will never be that BIG in defense and rebounding anyways?

Is she playing too nice on Hawes here or playing favorite or what?

 

[swisshh]

I think the guard needed for the Kings needs to be far more than a 3pt shooter. Beno's success shows that you need a floor general, combo/PG out there next to Reke. You need Steve Smith or Steven Blake, not Anthony Morrow.

 

[Superman]

Is it Kayte's looks or am I missing something here? I can see a lot of praises from the comments ( on the same site - full court press ) as if Kayte really made a good job on this article.

IMO, this player-by-player breakdown is far from being a "good job" if there is not that much emphasis on the 7-footer center Hawes' needing to improve in defense and rebounding. How could Kayte missed that when all season-long fans had pointed that out as the primary glaring problem in our starting center and that most fans wants the front office to draft, trade, or get from free agency a legit BIG?

Is Kayte surrendered and that she thinks it is futile to discuss those deficiencies in Hawes' game because she's convinced Hawes will never be that BIG in defense and rebounding anyways?

Is she playing too nice on Hawes here or playing favorite or what?

So you think she missed a crucial point in her breakdown by not emphasizing Hawes' weaknesses enough... fair point. But what does that have to do with how she looks?

 

[Emma]

^^

I think that this is a very good article. Specifics for players to improve upon are mentioned, analysis is very clear and to the point, fairly in depth... "A-" for Kayte. Very good stuff. Most of the articles on ESPN aren't anywhere near this insightful. Kayte is a very good analyst that I would trust no matter her appearance (her looks are just a bonus ). Maybe she blanked a little on Hawes, but you can't call the entire thing "far from a good job" just because of that. I don't think it's fair.

 

[TheFifthMookie]

Is it Kayte's looks or am I missing something here? as if Kayte really made a good job on this article.

IMO, this player-by-player breakdown is far from being a "good job"

Is she playing too nice on Hawes here or playing favorite or what?

If your only real complaint about an opinion article is the lack of critique on one particular player, then you actually probably liked most of the article and your obsession with one player is hurting your objectivity.

 

[bajaden]

Is it Kayte's looks or am I missing something here? I can see a lot of praises from the comments ( on the same site - full court press ) as if Kayte really made a good job on this article.

IMO, this player-by-player breakdown is far from being a "good job" if there is not that much emphasis on the 7-footer center Hawes' needing to improve in defense and rebounding. How could Kayte missed that when all season-long fans had pointed that out as the primary glaring problem in our starting center and that most fans wants the front office to draft, trade, or get from free agency a legit BIG?

Is Kayte surrendered and that she thinks it is futile to discuss those deficiencies in Hawes' game because she's convinced Hawes will never be that BIG in defense and rebounding anyways?

Is she playing too nice on Hawes here or playing favorite or what?

First off, your insulting Kayte by insinuating that she's getting by on just her looks, and then your insulting all those that may happen to like the article, by insinuating that we only do so because of her looks. I would suggest you just comment on your disagreements with the article and leave the BS at home. Kayte covered a lot of ground in the article. I'm sure she could have spent the entire article on just Hawes, but she was trying to cover the entire team. If you read carefully and between the lines, she did refer to Hawes defense.

While I don't agree with everything, especially our need for just a pure outside shooter, I thought she did a pretty good job in general. I do agree with her that we need someone next to Evans that can score to keep everyone honest, but I think that player has to be able to handle and pass as well.

 

[Kingsguy881]

Is it Kayte's looks or am I missing something here? I can see a lot of praises from the comments ( on the same site - full court press ) as if Kayte really made a good job on this article.

IMO, this player-by-player breakdown is far from being a "good job" if there is not that much emphasis on the 7-footer center Hawes' needing to improve in defense and rebounding. How could Kayte missed that when all season-long fans had pointed that out as the primary glaring problem in our starting center and that most fans wants the front office to draft, trade, or get from free agency a legit BIG?

Is Kayte surrendered and that she thinks it is futile to discuss those deficiencies in Hawes' game because she's convinced Hawes will never be that BIG in defense and rebounding anyways?

Is she playing too nice on Hawes here or playing favorite or what?

Of course, there are always going to misogynistic men who see a woman and want to believe that either A) She got where she was on her looks and/or B) They are better than she is.

My advice to you is to grow up. I have noticed you have a trend of attacking anything posted on here concerning Kayte and bringing her down a notch. Do you honestly think getting to where she has was easy? And the fact that she is a tall glass of tasty warm milk hasn't helped her, especially with sexist people like yourself trying to bring her down because of them.

Attack her article, don't attack her because she is an attractive woman. I find that offensive, and I'm a male.

 

[eflat]

Ya gotta consider the article is also posted on an official Kings site, right? Even if she wanted to rip a player a new one, that probably wouldn't fly. Good article.

 

[Bricklayer]

Less exclamation points Kayte -- detracts from analysis and makes you sound too cheerleadery.

Also on that front, even if you're posting on the Kings official site, get paid by the Maloofs, and know all these players, its ok to point out glaring weaknesses that you know are there, we know are there, and you would have noted last year. It was a 25 win team -- a promising group that I happen to like too but quite obviously one with a lot of weaknesses. You can say that. Say it nicely if you want, but you throw an entire analysis into shadow by not even mentioning them.

Wish I were in Sacto to compare her radio work with her blog posts, see if there is a Grant two lives thing with her. Be interesting to see how constraining the name on that paycheck is.

 

[Emma]

Her radio work is better than her TV stuff. Take from that what you will. Though, even the radio work is signed off on by the Maloofs.

 

[swisshh]

Her radio analysis is good stuff. Overall, she's not offensively critical of anyone. She doesn't "attack". Her good stuff comes in knowing the game rather well, in saying stuff like the bit about Landry learning to use an escape dribble instead of "his passing out of double teams is horrible".

She talks about Landry's weakness because she can understand the reason(size) and then figure possible ways to address it. This is different than typical loudmouth attacks made for cheap attention(Grant's territory).

 

[slugking50]

Her radio work is very good. Although, Shes not as good as Kara was.

 

[Warhawk]

Her radio analysis is good stuff. Overall, she's not offensively critical of anyone. She doesn't "attack". Her good stuff comes in knowing the game rather well, in saying stuff like the bit about Landry learning to use an escape dribble instead of "his passing out of double teams is horrible".

She talks about Landry's weakness because she can understand the reason(size) and then figure possible ways to address it. This is different than typical loudmouth attacks made for cheap attention(Grant's territory).

Agreed. She is very easy to listen to, knows what she is talking about, and doesn't go "on the attack" on any player.

 

[Prince_XY]

So you think she missed a crucial point in her breakdown by not emphasizing Hawes' weaknesses enough... fair point. But what does that have to do with how she looks?

Kayte missing to emphasize enough on Hawes' weaknesses on defense and rebounding does not really have anything to do with her looks. But IMO, I can't see why people will say the article is a "good job" when the article clearly misses emphasizing enough how Hawes should improve on his defense and rebounding. And mind you, it is not only me who moaned and groaned almost every game seeing our 7-foot center being pushed around. Some fans even think if we had a better center this season could have ended for the Kings differently.

This area of Hawes' game is a primary concern of almost every fan all-season long. Fans are actually unanimous in saying we should be drafting or getting from free agency a capable BIG who can do the job where Hawes had failed misserably. I can swear by the countless threads made and the countless criticisms thrown on Hawes regarding how he had failed as a 7-footer in that area of his game. Being called "soggy wa****" is no joke. ( And BTW, I have to apologize to Hawes for having called him by that name too many times. I learned the meaning from urban dictionary when somebody mentioned it and I am sorry for using the term on him. I have to admit it is such a terrible term to use on him )

And when an article misses to discuss more on that problem especially regarding the player directly concerned, then we can say it is far from being a "good job". Upto now I am wondering how a lot of fans at full-court press could say it is a "good job".

Is it because of Kayte's looks? I hope it is. It would be nicer if that was the reason. I actually consider it as a compliment for Kayte.

Is it bacause the fans knew Kayte is resigned on the notion that Hawes can still improve on defense and rebounding and that is why they give Kayte a pass when she failed discussing that most important deficiency in Hawes' game?

Or is it because some fans are outright SEXIST that they tend to be nicer on their criticisms of the article because it was written by a female?

 

[Prince_XY]

If your only real complaint about an opinion article is the lack of critique on one particular player, then you actually probably liked most of the article and your obsession with one player is hurting your objectivity.

Thank you for putting the word "if" on your comment. I assure you it is not an obsession on one particular player, but it is objectively more about the reality of the Kings story all-season long.

It may be harsh on Hawes, but what can I do if he is the player directly concerned? I don't even personally know Hawes and I don't have any reason to hate on Hawes other than his failure to play like the 7-footer that he should be. Actually, I was one of those people who thought Hawes can be the next Olajuwon when he got first drafted. And I wish Hawes could have improved so we don't have to discuss in countless threads about needing to draft or trade or acquire via free agency a legit defensive BIG all-season long.

 

[fnordius]

But IMO, I can't see why people will say the article is a "good job" when the article clearly misses emphasizing enough how Hawes should improve on his defense and rebounding.

She works for MS&E. That's not to say that she's going to lie to make the team look good, but she's the rookie in a group that has been subject to layoffs, so you may have to read between the lines a little, or think about the things she isn't saying. She has to maintain a good relationship with the entire organization, at least until she has a few years seniority.

Just be glad she doesn't spout out totally opinionated garbage which is way off base, like Napear does. Her criticisms may be mild, but they're not dead wrong.

 

[jalfa]

Thank you for putting the word "if" on your comment. I assure you it is not an obsession on one particular player, but it is objectively more about the reality of the Kings story all-season long.

It may be harsh on Hawes, but what can I do if he is the player directly concerned? I don't even personally know Hawes and I don't have any reason to hate on Hawes other than his failure to play like the 7-footer that he should be. Actually, I was one of those people who thought Hawes can be the next Olajuwon when he got first drafted. And I wish Hawes could have improved so we don't have to discuss in countless threads about needing to draft or trade or acquire via free agency a legit defensive BIG all-season long.

My problem with all this: You criticise a writer that you rather obviously have an agenda against and do so by concentrating on one single point, completely disregarding the rest of the article. This makes your attack seem completely biased and no further rant on just how bad Spencer was will mitigate that. Especially since you continue to ignore the points otherwise made in that article, which, btw, is pretty much as good as it gets, as far as commentary goes, what with the technical basketball knowledge shining through and all.

 

[Prince_XY]

First off, your insulting Kayte by insinuating that she's getting by on just her looks, and then your insulting all those that may happen to like the article, by insinuating that we only do so because of her looks. I would suggest you just comment on your disagreements with the article and leave the BS at home. Kayte covered a lot of ground in the article. I'm sure she could have spent the entire article on just Hawes, but she was trying to cover the entire team. If you read carefully and between the lines, she did refer to Hawes defense.

While I don't agree with everything, especially our need for just a pure outside shooter, I thought she did a pretty good job in general. I do agree with her that we need someone next to Evans that can score to keep everyone honest, but I think that player has to be able to handle and pass as well.

Sorry, but I can't see which part of my comment is BS. My comment may have been brutally honest, but believe me I wrote my comment as gentle and tactful as I could. I could have written that the comments of "good job" posted at full-court press are STUPID ( as some posters does sometimes ), but again I did not.

 

[Prince_XY]

Of course, there are always going to misogynistic men who see a woman and want to believe that either A) She got where she was on her looks and/or B) They are better than she is.

My advice to you is to grow up. I have noticed you have a trend of attacking anything posted on here concerning Kayte and bringing her down a notch. Do you honestly think getting to where she has was easy? And the fact that she is a tall glass of tasty warm milk hasn't helped her, especially with sexist people like yourself trying to bring her down because of them.

Attack her article, don't attack her because she is an attractive woman. I find that offensive, and I'm a male.

There are only two articles that Kayte wrote that I disagreed. Do not exaggerate as if I am hating Kayte and am here to attack "ANYTHING" posted concerning Kayte.

And where and what is the basis of your conclusion that I am disagreeing with Kayte just because she is a woman?

Friendly advice my friend. Think first before jumping to conclusions. Kayte wrote an article. Articles are out there in the public and not suppose to be immune from criticisms and that is whether Kayte is a male or a female. It is year 2010. Women' Lib has been here for a long time. Does EQUALITY not ring a bell to you? We are doing our women a great favor if we can honestly criticize their work the same way we criticize ours.

 

[Kingsguy881]

There are only two articles that Kayte wrote that I disagreed. Do not exaggerate as if I am hating Kayte and am here to attack "ANYTHING" posted concerning Kayte.

And where and what is the basis of your conclusion that I am disagreeing with Kayte just because she is a woman?

Friendly advice my friend. Think first before jumping to conclusions. Kayte wrote an article. Articles are out there in the public and not suppose to be immune from criticisms and that is whether Kayte is a male or a female. It is year 2010. Women' Lib has been here for a long time. Does EQUALITY not ring a bell to you? We are doing our women a great favor if we can honestly criticize their work the same way we criticize ours.

Ok, allright, fine. But I never hear you say anything along the lines of "Is it because of Sam Amicks looks ....." or "Is it because (insert random male sportscaster) is a stud that ......"

So who is the one looking like they need some friendly advice homes?

 

[Superman]

Kayte missing to emphasize enough on Hawes' weaknesses on defense and rebounding does not really have anything to do with her looks. But IMO, I can't see why people will say the article is a "good job" when the article clearly misses emphasizing enough how Hawes should improve on his defense and rebounding. And mind you, it is not only me who moaned and groaned almost every game seeing our 7-foot center being pushed around. Some fans even think if we had a better center this season could have ended for the Kings differently.

This area of Hawes' game is a primary concern of almost every fan all-season long. Fans are actually unanimous in saying we should be drafting or getting from free agency a capable BIG who can do the job where Hawes had failed misserably. I can swear by the countless threads made and the countless criticisms thrown on Hawes regarding how he had failed as a 7-footer in that area of his game. Being called "soggy wa****" is no joke. ( And BTW, I have to apologize to Hawes for having called him by that name too many times. I learned the meaning from urban dictionary when somebody mentioned it and I am sorry for using the term on him. I have to admit it is such a terrible term to use on him )

And when an article misses to discuss more on that problem especially regarding the player directly concerned, then we can say it is far from being a "good job". Upto now I am wondering how a lot of fans at full-court press could say it is a "good job".

Is it because of Kayte's looks? I hope it is. It would be nicer if that was the reason. I actually consider it as a compliment for Kayte.

Is it bacause the fans knew Kayte is resigned on the notion that Hawes can still improve on defense and rebounding and that is why they give Kayte a pass when she failed discussing that most important deficiency in Hawes' game?

Or is it because some fans are outright SEXIST that they tend to be nicer on their criticisms of the article because it was written by a female?

From the article:

Another piece every team in the NBA is always on the lookout for is a dominant low-post presence who can both play defense and rebound! It sounds simple to find, but it’s not, because post players take more time than guards to develop. If the team picks one up in the Draft, it’s highly unlikely he’d be able to come in dominating, so there is always free agency!
​

There were no scathing criticisms of anyone in the entire piece. It was a "kid gloves" kind of article, so I don't know why you expected her to blast Hawes in the first place. Add to that the fact that she obviously likes Spencer and thinks he's going to become a significant contributor at some point, and it's curious that you would pick on this article for not blowing him out of the water.

And as for the tie-in to her looks and all that, it's not like she's the only good-looking sports analyst in the world. There are plenty of them anymore, and they don't all get treated easy just because of how they look. Some of them get it worse. I don't really see why you're immediate reaction would be that she's only getting a pass because she's pretty. Seems like a hollow -- and pointless, by the way -- argument, that could have just as easily been left out.

 

[fnordius]

And as for the tie-in to her looks and all that, it's not like she's the only good-looking sports analyst in the world. There are plenty of them anymore, and they don't all get treated easy just because of how they look.

No kidding. Remember her, and the reception she got here?

 

[Prince_XY]

She works for MS&E. That's not to say that she's going to lie to make the team look good, but she's the rookie in a group that has been subject to layoffs, so you may have to read between the lines a little, or think about the things she isn't saying. She has to maintain a good relationship with the entire organization, at least until she has a few years seniority.

Just be glad she doesn't spout out totally opinionated garbage which is way off base, like Napear does. Her criticisms may be mild, but they're not dead wrong.

Thanks to you and Brickie. You guys cleared a lot of my questions about why the article was written as such.