SI: The Top 10: Odd Sights

[zip95843]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_y...ug=cnnsi-perimetershooti&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns

The new season is a time for adjustment -- to new players making the jump, to old players in new places, to emerging players in the same places and to a host of other changes. But change is rarely easy. Herewith, the 10 oddest sights of the season so far.

...

7. Royal scoring drought: We'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Kings of seasons past for demonstrating that basketball didn't have to be a 76-70 scrum every night, that it could be played fluidly and with an eye toward actually scoring. Sadly, those days are over; the last time the Kings scored as little as they have this season -- 91 points per game -- the franchise called Rochester home and was known as the Royals (in 1955). With Ron Artest now in Sacramento, we knew things would be ugly, but ... yeesh.

 

[piksi]

duh

 

[Entity]

He could have at least mentiond that we give up the fewest amount of points in the league but noooooooooooooooo that would be to much praise from the biast idiot.

 

[swisshh]

7. Royal scoring drought: We'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Kings of seasons past for demonstrating that basketball didn't have to be a 76-70 scrum every night, that it could be played fluidly and with an eye toward actually scoring. Sadly, those days are over; the last time the Kings scored as little as they have this season -- 91 points per game -- the franchise called Rochester home and was known as the Royals (in 1955). With Ron Artest now in Sacramento, we knew things would be ugly, but ... yeesh.

And when the team was like that, the media treated the Kings like a bunch of softies who were only good in the regular season and that their offense didn't matter.

But I guess offense is cool now? Morons.

 

[LPKingsFan]

The 1951 Royals were also the last team in the franchise to win it all, so take from that what you will.

 

[hoopsfan]

He's talking about the 1955 Royals , not 1951.

 

[coolhandluke]

On the other end...

I SCREAM, YOU SCREAM: The difference between the way the Kings are defending (especially ball screens) from last year to this is similar to the differences of fat-free ice cream and the kind you get at the mom and pop joint on the corner: one is poor but passable on occasion, the other is the real thing. -- Thorpe

Link

 

[LPKingsFan]

He's talking about the 1955 Royals , not 1951.

I know, was using it to compare eras more than anything else.

 

[kennadog]

And when the team was like that, the media treated the Kings like a bunch of softies who were only good in the regular season and that their offense didn't matter.

But I guess offense is cool now? Morons.
[/b]

Exactly my thought.

 

[hoopsfan]

I know, was using it to compare eras more than anything else.

oh,ok.

 

[LPKingsFan]

oh,ok.

...

 

[joejoe]

He could have at least mentiond that we give up the fewest amount of points in the league but noooooooooooooooo that would be to much praise from the biast idiot.

Yes, you need to look at both boths for, and points against. Right now, the Kings differential is +0.8, which is ranked 13 out of 30. Not bad, but not great either.

 

[Merdiesel]

And when the team was like that, the media treated the Kings like a bunch of softies who were only good in the regular season and that their offense didn't matter.

But I guess offense is cool now? Morons.
[/b]

Thats because the Kings get no love and never have...

 

[artest93fan]

no matter what the kings do they still get no respect

 

[Kingzrool]

{insert Rodney Dangerfield joke here}

 

[hammystyle]

Thats because the Kings get no love and never have...

They got plenty of love when they were a contender. They had an SI cover, publications picked them to win it all, and plenty of coverage.