The Defenders -- A Little Respect Please

[Showtime]

First of all, basically your argument comes down to I don't like him so I'm gonig to ignore the stats.

Funny you talk about ignored stats when you obviously missed my previous post addressing his offensive troubles, and some stats of my own regarding how he hurts the team on offense.

Secondly, this thread was about DEFENSE. not overall impact. Even says defenders in the title. All the stats posted were about defensive impact.

Your thread was a direct response to that raptor game, where the kings played poorly. You even mentioned this, and talked about the lack of minutes from Donte and Dally as a conscious choice from the coach to avoid defense (which implies they would have won the game if they played those two guys more). Perhaps it was a conscious choice to put the best players in the game?

Daly +/-: +2.4pts (4th amongst our core players)
Daly Net Production: -0.2pts (2nd on the team, only Cisco has a positive, also 2nd lowest opponent production on the team)
Daly On/Off Court Offense per 100 possessions: +0.9pts (yes that's right, even the OFFENSE gets better)
Daly On/Off Court Defense per 100 possessions: -4.1pts (4.1pts better)
Daly On/Off Court Total per 100 possessions: +5.0pts

So he has a positive +/-, our defense gets better when he is on the court, and even our OFFENSE gets better when he is on the court. But he's hurting us. Go figure.

I really don't have the time or inclination to explain how these stats work. Anybody who does knows they have some value, but are flawed without context. Not only can they be influenced by teammates on the court (and players that are covered by said teammates), but also by the quality of opposition, quality of units that happen to be on the floor during those minutes, and home v away games. I guess you would like to ignore the fact that the kings have had one of the easiest schedules in the league, and that the games in which Dally has played the most minutes so far this season just so happen to be home games, where historically teams on the road (and these are bad teams, mind you) inherently don't perform as well offensively. THESE IMPACT THE DEFENSIVE STATS that you are pointing out, especially if Dally is playing second unit players. But all that means nothing to you since the end result is apparently all that matters, and you don't grasp how these stats are taken.

Apparently, Darnell Jackson is the best big on the Kings, since he has the best on/off court gains.

OMG, Head must be the best PG on the team because he's got the third best Net Production!

I could go on about some of the numbers with Beno and others, but you get the point (well, I hope so).

It shoudl be noted BTW that it simply would not matter if a guy committed 10 turnovers a game and 5 goaltends a game -- if the team responded to his presence by playing better than it did without him then he is helping that team.

By "better", I hope you mean ended up with such a positive point differential as to overcome the possible point losses caused by said turnovers and goaltends. Otherwise: no.

Derek Fisher is being fitted for an artifical hip as we speak, has the worst stats of any starting PG, and yet he still has the second biggest +/- on that team. He's important to them.

He has the +/- rating because he plays with the starting unit. Any PG on the lakers starting unit would have a better +/- than any reserve PG for the lakers. That has more to do with Kobe and Pau than with the individual talent and production of Fish. Again, I would think you were smart enough to understand how +/- works, and the flaws in it's calculations.

And none of that stuff applies to Daly. He's been one of the best at the things he does in this league for a long time. And the things he does pretty clearly outweighs the things he doesn't do.

I disagree. What he does do well is block shots, and that's about it. Sixer fans will tell you the same: if you have the talent to compensate for the other areas that he hurts you with, then he might help. But when you don't have a talented team, he's going to show more and more of his weaknesses and those said weaknesses will end up hurting you more.

 

[hrdboild]

Westphal stopped playing Donte the 29th of December. Seven games have been played since then. The record is 3-4. On average the team has scored 107 points per game during that stretch. The prior seven games Donte played in the 20s in minutes. The record: 0-7. The number of points on average scored by the Kings during that stretch: 92.
The numbers speak for themselves.

Right and the last two games we're now 0-2 while giving up an average of 127 points per game against two of the worst teams in the NBA. Reke hasn't played of course, which is a huge factor, but isn't it reasonable to be questioning our commitment to defense right now? What Brick was pointing out with this topic is that it isn't objectively obvious that Donte and Dalembert aren't deserving of more playing time unless you completely disregard their defense (which unfortunately has been a bad habit of Kings fans for a long time now). And while we lose some offensive efficiency with them on the floor, it's possible that the corresponding boost to our defense would still work out in our favor. You can't say we lost those last two games because of our offense.

 

[Bricklayer]

Funny you talk about ignored stats when you obviously missed my previous post addressing his offensive troubles, and some stats of my own regarding how he hurts the team on offense.



Your thread was a direct response to that raptor game, where the kings played poorly. You even mentioned this, and talked about the lack of minutes from Donte and Dally as a conscious choice from the coach to avoid defense (which implies they would have won the game if they played those two guys more). Perhaps it was a conscious choice to put the best players in the game?



I really don't have the time or inclination to explain how these stats work. Anybody who does knows they have some value, but are flawed without context. Not only can they be influenced by teammates on the court (and players that are covered by said teammates), but also by the quality of opposition, quality of units that happen to be on the floor during those minutes, and home v away games. I guess you would like to ignore the fact that the kings have had one of the easiest schedules in the league, and that the games in which Dally has played the most minutes so far this season just so happen to be home games, where historically teams on the road (and these are bad teams, mind you) inherently don't perform as well offensively. THESE IMPACT THE DEFENSIVE STATS that you are pointing out, especially if Dally is playing second unit players. But all that means nothing to you since the end result is apparently all that matters, and you don't grasp how these stats are taken.

Apparently, Darnell Jackson is the best big on the Kings, since he has the best on/off court gains.

OMG, Head must be the best PG on the team because he's got the third best Net Production!

I could go on about some of the numbers with Beno and others, but you get the point (well, I hope so).



By "better", I hope you mean ended up with such a positive point differential as to overcome the possible point losses caused by said turnovers and goaltends. Otherwise: no.



He has the +/- rating because he plays with the starting unit. Any PG on the lakers starting unit would have a better +/- than any reserve PG for the lakers. That has more to do with Kobe and Pau than with the individual talent and production of Fish. Again, I would think you were smart enough to understand how +/- works, and the flaws in it's calculations.



I disagree. What he does do well is block shots, and that's about it. Sixer fans will tell you the same: if you have the talent to compensate for the other areas that he hurts you with, then he might help. But when you don't have a talented team, he's going to show more and more of his weaknesses and those said weaknesses will end up hurting you more.

There's really not much point to this. You have made up your mind, and either consciously or unconciously are going to purposefully misunderstand the meaning of stats to further your agenda. Its pointless. The stats say, and this is basically all of them BTW, that we are better with Dalembert on the court. Much better defensively. And even a little better offensively. But certainly better. The stats listed repeatedly are all overall stats which cover the impact of every single thing you complain about and still the results are positive for Dalembert. You don't like that, and so get lost in a morass of vague well those stats can't mean what they look like they mean stuff. So there's nothing for it. If it really amuses you you can continue watching your game your way, see every flaw as the be all, and continue to miss the fact we are cosnistently doing better with Dalembert on the floor while making up every excuse in the world how that could be happening despite his obvious awfulness. Excuse me if I don't join you.

 

[pshn80]

In answer to my question of what should the team do with this information on compaitive defensive alignments, I assume the answer to be - play Dalembert more and Cousins less. I have no problem with doing that. I would guess the biggest problem would be, since Cousins has so much promise, playing him more to hurry his experience and development has to be slowed down. I have no problem with that but I suspect Cousins and management would.

So who should we play the most, our superior defender or our sputtering phenom?

 

[kennadog]

Goal tending is when they block the shot after it had reached its highest point and is on its downward motion. Think of an upside down "U" shape as the trajectory. Also they call it if the ball is blocked after it touches the backboard. It doesnt matter if it was going to go in or not. However the officials dont always make the correct call, so players can get away with goaltending sometimes. Team gets awarded 2 points for every of their shot goaltended, or if its a 3 pointer they get 3 points but ive never seen that happen myself.

Actually I know that and the rule about the ball touching the back board first. But you can touch/block a ball on its downward arc if it's no where near the the basket. Think an obvious airball, for example. I think there has to be a determintation that it actually is a shot at the basket that might possibly have gone in without the interference and hasn't touched the back board. Or am I still wrong?

CAat. Factorial's explanation that it likely costs us something less than one point on average seems reasonable.

 

[hrdboild]

Actually I know that and the rule about the ball touching the back board first. But you can touch/block a ball on its downward arc if it's no where near the the basket. Think an obvious airball, for example. I think there has to be a determintation that it actually is a shot at the basket that might possibly have gone in without the interference and hasn't touched the back board. Or am I still wrong?

CAat. Factorial's explanation that it likely costs us something less than one point on average seems reasonable.

This is correct, if the ball is nowhere near close to going in the basket than it's a loose ball and anyone can tap it, grab it, or alter it's trajectory. That doesn't apply though if the ball is too far away from the basket to determine if it's going to go in or not. If someone shoots a long rainbow and you jump up and block it 3 feet from the basket, it's still goal tending if the ball is on a downward trajectory.

From what I recall, most of Dalembert's goaltending calls have been borderline with the ball having just hit the backboard or just reached its highest point. Every shot blocker gets called for a number of those.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Actually I know that and the rule about the ball touching the back board first. But you can touch/block a ball on its downward arc if it's no where near the the basket. Think an obvious airball, for example. I think there has to be a determintation that it actually is a shot at the basket that might possibly have gone in without the interference and hasn't touched the back board. Or am I still wrong?

Correct. A ball with no chance to go in the basket may be touched at any point on the arc, which is why, for instance, alley-oops are legal.

 

[Lockehead]

Actually I know that and the rule about the ball touching the back board first. But you can touch/block a ball on its downward arc if it's no where near the the basket. Think an obvious airball, for example. I think there has to be a determintation that it actually is a shot at the basket that might possibly have gone in without the interference and hasn't touched the back board. Or am I still wrong?

CAat. Factorial's explanation that it likely costs us something less than one point on average seems reasonable.

I think thats for the refs to decide. If its an obvious airball, i dont think goaltending would count because itd be like trying to rebound an airball. I dont know exactly, so thats probably left up to the refs to decide

edit: shouldve read the other responses first. Yeah i guess obvious airballs wouldnt count.

 

[Bricklayer]

I think thats for the refs to decide. If its an obvious airball, i dont think goaltending would count because itd be like trying to rebound an airball. I dont know exactly, so thats probably left up to the refs to decide

edit: shouldve read the other responses first. Yeah i guess obvious airballs wouldnt count.

Yep, its i the rules, and its a refs judgment call. But just logically it rarely comes up for the major shotblockers -- how often do you see a goaltend on a long jumper? 90%+ of them are on layups or flips or post moves -- stuff that all has a much higher chance of going in anyway.

 

[bajaden]

In answer to my question of what should the team do with this information on compaitive defensive alignments, I assume the answer to be - play Dalembert more and Cousins less. I have no problem with doing that. I would guess the biggest problem would be, since Cousins has so much promise, playing him more to hurry his experience and development has to be slowed down. I have no problem with that but I suspect Cousins and management would.

So who should we play the most, our superior defender or our sputtering phenom?

OK, lets apply logic to this. If we play Dalembert more and Cousins less, how many more games will we win in your opinion? Is it possible that we might actually lose more games with Dalembert than Cousins? We would improve defensively, but we would regress offensively. Would it just be a push, and not really matter in the grand scheme of things?

Lets assume that we would win 2 more games starting Dalembert and giving him the bulk of the minutes at center. Just exactly how does that help us in the future? By all accounts, everything I've read says that Dalembert is gone at years end. Even Joe Maloof just today in the Bee stated how much money we would have at the end of the year when Dalembert and Landry come off the books. So if thats true, then what do we gain by winning a few more games with Dalembert, while at the same time shortcutting the experience that Cousins needs. Cousins is our center of the future. And the more experience he gets, the faster that future is going to arrive.

Its time to stop having kneejerk reactions game by game. Cousins is a kid and he's playing against the best players in the NBA on a nightly basis. He's going to have some terrific games, and he's going to have some less than stellar games. Did any of you really think we were going to go into Boston with the worse record in the NBA and beat the Celtics. I told my wife before the game that we'd be lucky to keep the game to no more than a 15 pt loss. Lest we forget, the Celtics played the Lakers for the world championships last year and took them to 7 games. And they might have won if Perkins hadn't gotten injured.

Anyway, to my mind, you keep starting Cousins and you give the kid as many minutes as you can. And I qualify that by saying, you do that as long as you see the effort you want out of him. If you see him lagging back on defense, then sit him down for 5 minutes and let him think about it. But as long as he's putting out the effort, you let him play. Whether some of us like it or not, Evans and Cousins are the heart of this team. The sooner the both of them are up to speed, the sooner this team will start to win.

 

[Spike]

Anyway, to my mind, you keep starting Cousins and you give the kid as many minutes as you can. And I qualify that by saying, you do that as long as you see the effort you want out of him. If you see him lagging back on defense, then sit him down for 5 minutes and let him think about it. But as long as he's putting out the effort, you let him play. Whether some of us like it or not, Evans and Cousins are the heart of this team. The sooner the both of them are up to speed, the sooner this team will start to win.

I don't think Dalembert's minutes have to come at the expense of Cousins's. There were a few times this season when both were on the floor, and the team actually looked pretty good for a stretch. Also, DMC isn't going to play all 48 minutes. I think the fundamental issue is that minutes can be had, but unfortunately they're being wasted on players like Head/Jackson/Taylor/etc. Even though they play at different positions, there's a trickle-down effect that can be alleviated by sliding people over (Garcia to SG, opening more minutes for Omri, or, hey, even Donte.)

Donte's doghouse must be palacial, if he can't get any minutes vs. Boston's lineup of Wafer/Harangody/Robinson/Daniels/Erden.

 

[bajaden]

I don't think Dalembert's minutes have to come at the expense of Cousins's. There were a few times this season when both were on the floor, and the team actually looked pretty good for a stretch. Also, DMC isn't going to play all 48 minutes. I think the fundamental issue is that minutes can be had, but unfortunately they're being wasted on players like Head/Jackson/Taylor/etc. Even though they play at different positions, there's a trickle-down effect that can be alleviated by sliding people over (Garcia to SG, opening more minutes for Omri, or, hey, even Donte.)

Donte's doghouse must be palacial, if he can't get any minutes vs. Boston's lineup of Wafer/Harangody/Robinson/Daniels/Erden.

I don't disagree with you. I was simply replying to a post suggesting that Cousins minutes be diminished in favor of Dalembert. I agree with you that Dalembert can still get his minutes in several different ways, including playing along side of Cousins. I'm going to disagree with you a wee bit on Head, Jackson and Taylor. I'm sort of intrigued with Taylor. I liked him coming out of college, and he's reminded me of why. He's a very good athlete, with both offensive and defensive potential. Head is what he is, and he's probably not going to get any better. I certainly don't see any future stardom for Jackson, who looks like he has jouneyman stamped on his back. But Taylor is a different story. I wouldn't mind seeing how he can develop.

 

[Spike]

I don't disagree with you. I was simply replying to a post suggesting that Cousins minutes be diminished in favor of Dalembert. I agree with you that Dalembert can still get his minutes in several different ways, including playing along side of Cousins. I'm going to disagree with you a wee bit on Head, Jackson and Taylor. I'm sort of intrigued with Taylor. I liked him coming out of college, and he's reminded me of why. He's a very good athlete, with both offensive and defensive potential. Head is what he is, and he's probably not going to get any better. I certainly don't see any future stardom for Jackson, who looks like he has jouneyman stamped on his back. But Taylor is a different story. I wouldn't mind seeing how he can develop.

And I'll agree with your disagree. I pretty much lumped him into the "who the hell is he and why is he playing so much having recently joined the team as a throwaway pickup" category. I'll defer to you and your TIVO backlog of every NCAA player on him. In any case, we're in the same boat compadre.

 

[pshn80]

I don't think Dalembert's minutes have to come at the expense of Cousins's.
Not totally but generally yes they do. My test on this question is answered best by my belief that both Dalembert and Cousins are CENTERS. And, being centers, in the long run its best to play them at center. Can either play power forward? Certainly, any body can be asked to do that and sometimes for a short period it might be advantages, but in the long run its best for the team and the player to play them at their natural position. So in my book which one do you play the most. I like Baja's analysis.

 

[fnordius]

Here are some breakdown by 82 games. More info than I wanted, but for those that are stat nuts, enjoy..

I'd add: http://www.82games.com/1011/1011SAC.HTM

 

[ESP47]

I'd add: http://www.82games.com/1011/1011SAC.HTM

Thanks for the link. Pretty interesting stuff. Looks like we play shut down D with this lineup

Head-Evans-Greene-Landry-Dalembert

Two above average, two average and one below average defender.

Hold opponents to a .356 shooting %.

I remember when we were running that lineup out there earlier this year. Opponents could hardly score 90 on us. Although we could hardly score 90 ourselves.

 

[bajaden]

Thanks for the link. Pretty interesting stuff. Looks like we play shut down D with this lineup

Head-Evans-Greene-Landry-Dalembert

Two above average, two average and one below average defender.

Hold opponents to a .356 shooting %.

I remember when we were running that lineup out there earlier this year. Opponents could hardly score 90 on us. Although we could hardly score 90 ourselves.

I guess it comes down to just how do you want to go out. With guns blazing, or in a protective fetal position. OK, I exaggerate a little, but the truth is, either way we were losing. Now if we can eventually find some middle ground we might start winning a few games.

Let me just add this. If your going to put a more offensively talented team on the floor, but that team lacks individually gifted playes that can play one on one defense, then your going to have to play very good team defense. That becomes near impossible when you have such a young and inexperienced team. But it only gets worse when you constantly keep changing the starting lineup. Team defense is part knowing what to do in certain situations, but also familiarity with those your playing with. Its almost like an offensive line in football. The longer they play together, the better they become. We've had what? 15/16 different starting lineups out of 30 something games? It sometimes takes a year or more for a team to jell playing defense together. We can't keep a starting lineup together for more than 2 or 3 games. Its no wonder our defense stinks.

I swear, sometimes I think Westphal has a big jar with all the names in it except Tyreke's and he just pulls out four more names before every game.

 

[Bricklayer]

Bump.

 

[kingsboi]

Today they did a phenomenal job. Let's see if it's consistent tomorrow vs Detroit though.

 

[TTown Kings]

what you think Sam's 5 blocks in the 4th quarter with three during critical moments had anything to do with the win? I mean, he sucks offensively so he can't have a positive impact on the game. hahahahahaha

 

[beb0p]

Two players who there have been subject in recent weeks to some very odd attempts to deny their defensive effectiveness. So let's get to the numbers shall we?

I don't recall even the most anti-Dalembert poster questioning his defense. Good defender? Yes, definitely. The second coming of Mutombo? No. That's a difference between a good and a GREAT defender. It's when the silly attempt to make Daly into something his's not that's when the rest of us had to say something. To be fair, if Daly consistently have games like the one in MSG then perhaps he belongs in the conversation of a great defender. Until then, he isn't. That doesn't mean he isn't helping the Kings defensively, but let's not go too far and say things like he's interchangeable with a guy like Tyson Chandler.

As for Greene, that's where scale of opinions grows larger; but here again is the attempt to morph him something he's not, in this case a Bruce Bowen, which I suspect would make even Donte shakes his head. Since we're busting out stats here is one stat that really matters... W and L.

When Donte plays more than 20 mins the Kings are 3-17 (0.150 winning pct)

Since Garcia replaced Donte (with Donte average < 10 mins a game), the Kings are 4-10 (.400 winning pct).

Basically the Kings are now winning 3X more games since Donte went back to the (deep) bench. I don't care if Greene is the second comming of Scottie Pippen, if the team is winning more with him playing less mins then it's all that matters.

 

[Alacron]

When Donte plays more than 20 mins the Kings are 3-17 (0.150 winning pct)

Since Garcia replaced Donte (with Donte average < 10 mins a game), the Kings are 4-10 (.400 winning pct).

Basically the Kings are now winning 3X more games since Donte went back to the (deep) bench.

No. Run the numbers again.

Even with correct numbers, btw, to suggest that our record over a certain stretch is entirely due to two players swapping out is ludicrous. And do you really think it was a good decision to let Garcia get emasculated by Pierce rather than let Donte have a shot at him?
~~

 

[Bricklayer]

I don't recall even the most anti-Dalembert poster questioning his defense. Good defender? Yes, definitely. The second coming of Mutombo? No. That's a difference between a good and a GREAT defender. It's when the silly attempt to make Daly into something his's not that's when the rest of us had to say something. To be fair, if Daly consistently have games like the one in MSG then perhaps he belongs in the conversation of a great defender. Until then, he isn't. That doesn't mean he isn't helping the Kings defensively, but let's not go too far and say things like he's interchangeable with a guy like Tyson Chandler.

Uh, no. This thread was created in direct response to the surging tide of stupidity on this issue on the board as Daly/Donte's offense sucks slowly becamse Daly/Greene sucks and eventually reached the intolerable dumbness of Daly/Greene aren't even that good of defenders really. If you let people prattle on they can eventually talk themselves into anything, so I decided to drop a statbomb to reset things back into rational discussion.

And Daly's not interchangeable with WHO? Tyson Chandler?? You must be kidding me. I've always liked Chandler, but if anythign its been he who has struggled throughout his career to maintain a Daly level of production, not the other way around. And I think at their respective bests Chandler might be better, but there is no huge gap there unless I missed some DPOY awards somewhere along the way.

As for Greene, that's where scale of opinions grows larger; but here again is the attempt to morph him something he's not, in this case a Bruce Bowen, which I suspect would make even Donte shakes his head. Since we're busting out stats here is one stat that really matters... W and L.

When Donte plays more than 20 mins the Kings are 3-17 (0.150 winning pct)

Since Garcia replaced Donte (with Donte average < 10 mins a game), the Kings are 4-10 (.400 winning pct).

Basically the Kings are now winning 3X more games since Donte went back to the (deep) bench. I don't care if Greene is the second comming of Scottie Pippen, if the team is winning more with him playing less mins then it's all that matters.

I am sure that that had nothing at all to do with our rookie center gaining experince and settling in, and Reke's mom passing through town to tell her son to find his inner Reke. And as I have pointed out repeatedly -- the stats say we are at a + when Donte is on the floor, meangin that whether we won or lost 20+ min games wiht him, while HE was on the floor in those games we were winning them.

 

[beb0p]

No. Run the numbers again.

Even with correct numbers, btw, to suggest that our record over a certain stretch is entirely due to two players swapping out is ludicrous. And do you really think it was a good decision to let Garcia get emasculated by Pierce rather than let Donte have a shot at him?
~~

No, Garcia in place of Donte is NOT the only reason we played better but it is one of severals reasons we are. Or is it your contention that Cisco's increased role has absolutely no relevance in our improvement?

You sound as if Garcia has to face Pierce every single game.

 

[beb0p]

Uh, no. This thread was created in direct response to the surging tide of stupidity on this issue on the board as Daly/Donte's offense sucks slowly becamse Daly/Greene sucks and eventually reached the intolerable dumbness of Daly/Greene aren't even that good of defenders really. If you let people prattle on they can eventually talk themselves into anything, so I decided to drop a statbomb to reset things back into rational discussion.

And Daly's not interchangeable with WHO? Tyson Chandler?? You must be kidding me. I've always liked Chandler, but if anythign its been he who has struggled throughout his career to maintain a Daly level of production, not the other way around. And I think at their respective bests Chandler might be better, but there is no huge gap there unless I missed some DPOY awards somewhere along the way.


I am sure that that had nothing at all to do with our rookie center gaining experince and settling in, and Reke's mom passing through town to tell her son to find his inner Reke. And as I have pointed out repeatedly -- the stats say we are at a + when Donte is on the floor, meangin that whether we won or lost 20+ min games wiht him, while HE was on the floor in those games we were winning them.

I'm not going into a Chandler vs. Dalembert debate, that can be saved for people who actually cared about those two. I do know that Chandler are consistently on much more successful teams than Dalembert, has a better defensive reputation than Dalembert, is in the playoff almost every year, has always been well liked by fans and is always on the short list of teams eyeing a championship. Dalembert, in contrast, usually find himself on losing teams and fans who want to trade him away. Imo, there is such a thing as winners, guys who just know how to win better than others. It's an intangible ability, impossible to measure but evident nonetheless. You can't swap Chandler for Dalembert any more than you can swap Robert Horry for Tyron Corbin.

With that said, I don't want to take anything away from Dalembert. He deserves a lot of credit for the defense he brings to the table. And let's hope he continues to play like he did in NYC.

And as I've said, there are several reasons why the Kings have improved, but only a buffoon would say inserting Garcia into the starting lineup in place of Donte has zero effect whatsoever. Notice I'm not saying Donte is not a good defender, but I think it's evident that the defense Donte brings is best used off the bench in an as-needed basis.