CurseOfTheSalmons
Starter
some of the guys seem depressed in the interviews, like they know the team is going to suck.
some of the guys seem depressed in the interviews, like they know the team is going to suck.
Well, nothing says chemistry like having multiple guys competing for spots at 3/5 positions? After all, most of the successful teams in the league have that much uncertainty around roles and it really works for them .
You need to be able to separate blanket optimism from various strengths and weaknesses of our roster, as well as what my post was actually about, which was how we stacked up against the West and judging this team on wins/losses.No optimism?
Oh my God, the world is ending. If your endless hand-wringing over the team starts to form blisters, just use your tears to lubricate the skin.
Meanwhile, let's see what the product on the floor actually looks like, shall we?
Actually yes, Mr. Negative Sarcastic Know It All. Or Ms. Don't want to be presumptuous.
Healthy competition on a team does build chemistry, that way when spots have been settled, everybody is on board (if they are team players, such as we have), and they know it's not favoritism.
Go away with your stanky attitude.
Your right about sharing viewpoints and people are optimistic right now. We have the best big man in the league, a high level SF, I personally think we have an interesting group of pieces that Malone can play in situations. While you pee and moan about the FO not nailing down starting caliber players (not even sure what the heck that means), the FO has in 1 full year: turned over the roster which was an extremely tough chore to do, loaded the roster with a mix of professional vets and interesting young guys like Stauskas, Ben, Ray, Moreland. The depth is better than ever. We switched from a selfish me guy of a PG to a PG who has been on winning teams and is already showing more leadership than the previous guy. The FO has given Malone many, many options or players that he can mix and match in situational basketball and matchups. We have a big 2. If someone can emerge as another piece and take a jump forward such as Collison or Ben or Nik or Ray ....maybe Sessions can provide some spark off the bench. Malone is a defensive whiz and he's convinced that the team is going in the right direction defensively as he stated about the end of last year's squad....a squad that had players coming and going all year.Bs. This is professional sports not high school ball. While depth and the natural competition that comes with it are nice things to have, it's a need to find the purple lining that leads celebrating the fact that we have failed to once again nail down starting caliber talent.
Again there is a reason good teams are pretty settled heading into training camp with roles.
It's not the end of the world and obviously we all hope our cream rises to the top. I'm just getting sick of any posts that note where we may be off from tried and true team building strategies eliciting "whiny, cry baby, get out of here with that" responses. This board is supposed to be a place where different viewpoints can be shared and for a team that has sucked as badly as ours for as long as ours, a little shared concern over issues should be treated more respectfully.
Rumor is that team hired Dean Oliver from espn. Oliver is one of the original advanced stat guys and is widely respected in the back offices of the league.
Whoa. That's a big change from the last several years of "Sacramento does not have an advanced stats department" era. That could be a very, very good move.
I'm just getting sick of any posts that note where we may be off from tried and true team building strategies eliciting "whiny, cry baby, get out of here with that" responses. This board is supposed to be a place where different viewpoints can be shared and for a team that has sucked as badly as ours for as long as ours, a little shared concern over issues should be treated more respectfully.
Well, nothing says chemistry like having multiple guys competing for spots at 3/5 positions? After all, most of the successful teams in the league have that much uncertainty around roles and it really works for them .
Since you feel that way, I totally get why your original post I cited was stated in such a respectful tone.![]()
Good lord. Dean Oliver = tool. You guys aren't going to be so amused when we dump Cuz for Nick Collison because he's got a higher RAPM.
Yes and no. I'm generally pretty wary of the way advanced stats get used to explain some nonsense but he has a pretty decent track record of influencing some good basketball decisions.
The last time one of ESPN's geek posers got hired by an NBA basketball team the very first thing he did was convince them that dumping Rudy Gay for an over the hill Tayshaun Prince and a never to be used Ed Davis was an upgrade. That stupidity also eventually cost them their coach. Now we got one of our own. And hey, know who else we got? ESPN fav Rudy Gay! Who oddly coaches seem to like, and Cuz seems to like, because you know basketball people have this thing about working with talented people.
My sarcasm was directed at the perspective not the poster, which I'm pretty sure is part of the rules around here.
Honestly, it's a message board so I don't really care. I just don't understand how anytime anything is posted that questions the team's strategy, even when it's done in a thoughtful way (which my sarcasm may not have been the best demonstration of), a small segment of the board jumps on these posters with far more aggressiveness than the "cry babies" send their way.
The last time one of ESPN's geek posers got hired by an NBA basketball team the very first thing he did was convince them that dumping Rudy Gay for an over the hill Tayshaun Prince and a never to be used Ed Davis was an upgrade. That stupidity also eventually cost them their coach. Now we got one of our own. And hey, know who else we got? ESPN fav Rudy Gay! Who oddly coaches seem to like, and Cuz seems to like, because you know basketball people have this thing about working with talented people.
Again, I agree and I'm not a fan of guys that built their reputations on stats with no basketball experience. When he was with Denver, his influence is widely credited with the Iverson/Billups swap, drafting Lawson and with helping get as much value out of the Anthony trade as possible. He also didn't really have any big oops moves to lay at his door. So, yes stat-geek scares me, but his track record in terms of actual influence on moves has looked good so far.
In general, it's going to be a rude awakening to judge us on wins/losses when we're likely running out a Collison/Stauskas backcourt with Sessions/Ben off the bench. That might just be the worst defensive backcourt in the entire West. Team defense only helps so much. The top defensive coaches still rely on using some of the better defensive players.
It's a problem when a 33 yr old Hinrich would immediately be our best backcourt defender, at either the 1 or the 2.
We weren't the only ones. Doc Rivers lauded Collison for his defense with the Clippers. I lauded Collison for his defense every time I saw him play last year. McCallum plays above average D. It's the sg spot where we lack defense, not the entire backcourt. That assessment, sir/ma'am (rainmaker), is false.The Kings lauded Collison's defense when the aquired him.
Being not as "advanced" as most on here, please tell me what Oliver does for a living, what his positions in the past have been called, and, lastly, if he is being hired by the Kings, what work would he do, who would he report to, and what would he be called? Advance me. (Is this sort of like the ongoing discussions of "small ball", "like Den and GS"?)
In general, it's going to be a rude awakening to judge us on wins/losses when we're likely running out a Collison/Stauskas backcourt with Sessions/Ben off the bench. That might just be the worst defensive backcourt in the entire West. Team defense only helps so much. The top defensive coaches still rely on using some of the better defensive players.
It's a problem when a 33 yr old Hinrich would immediately be our best backcourt defender, at either the 1 or the 2.
You need to be able to separate blanket optimism from various strengths and weaknesses of our roster, as well as what my post was actually about, which was how we stacked up against the West and judging this team on wins/losses.
Are there reasons for optimism? Sure.
1) Boogie taking it to yet another level, becoming an AS and All-NBA player, putting up 25/12/4 which I think he can come near this season.
2) Rudy meshing more with the team, becoming the clear 2nd option while remaining efficient.
3) Better PG depth, although less overall talent there. Will have to see if addition by subtraction helps but the ball should move more.
4) Drafted Stauskas who appears to have high basketball IQ and should be able to contribute this year, although like most rooks will have ups and downs.
5) Moreland might become enough of a defensive presence that he's a regular part of our rotation.
6) Rudy/Omri is a better SF rotation than we've had in years.
I however don't need to be reminded about anything regarding this regime. You're new here so I know you're likely not aware of this, but many of these discussions have been ongoing for a while, nor is most of your reply to me related to my post. When being judged on wins and losses in the stacked WC, we could see a number of my reasons for optimism listed above prove to be right, yet still be 10 games out of the playoff race. Yet when our owner says he's judging this season by wins/losses, compartmentalized improvements don't weigh as much, in part because sports is a bottom line business. If we don't see success in the win/loss column, pointing to my list above would be deflecting from the target criteria of judgement. That doesn't mean there isn't value to the points listed above, but it's a different set of criteria than I was commenting on.
At the same time, everyone has their own opinions on what define acceptable improvement in the standings. For me, 30-35 wins isn't much of an improvement. At this point, I don't see the talent to win more than that. I'd love to be wrong though, I'd love for our role players to step up and play like proven NBA level starters/rotation players, for Stauakas/Ben to become a legit SG platoon, for Collison/Sessions to at least hold their own against the strongest position in the modern day NBA, for both Moreland and Hollins to provide the defense down low we need and so on, and win 40+ games. But I'm also not going to sit here and pretend that's likely. Why not? Here's a few reasons:
1) Neither Collison nor Sessions are what I would classify as legit NBA starters.
2) Neither of our SG's have proven thus far they're capable of starting in this league.
3) Our PF's look like a poor fit, eat up salary space and don't answer to a vital need down low; defense.
4) I have little confidence in Hollins being even a semi-adequate defensive backup center
5) We're going to be over-matched defensively at the 1, 2 and 4 on most nights before the ball even goes up
6) Outside Cuz and Rudy, we don't have what I'd label as legit NBA starters on this roster. JT has been for us but I maintain his best role would be as a 3rd big.
7) Either Rudy of Cuz goes down for any amount of time, we're ****'ed.
You're free to be as optimistic as you like. I do find it funny though how a few here appear to have an optimism meter in their back pocket and repeatedly have a problem with those they feel don't register high enough on that meter.