Venting..............

[Superman]

Why would you tell a player (particularly a young player who is still trying to gain confidence at this level) to stop doing something that they do well? I can understand encouraging him to give attention to his inside game, to focus on his post moves and not rely on his jumper, but telling him to stop shooting from outside because he's a big man seems counterproductive.

I could see if he wasn't hitting them, but he's got a good jumper. Not just for a big man, either. Overall, he's got a solid stroke that could be a key component to his game. Taking that away from him would be crippling.

 

[Bricklayer]

Why would you tell a player (particularly a young player who is still trying to gain confidence at this level) to stop doing something that they do well? I can understand encouraging him to give attention to his inside game, to focus on his post moves and not rely on his jumper, but telling him to stop shooting from outside because he's a big man seems counterproductive.

I could see if he wasn't hitting them, but he's got a good jumper. Not just for a big man, either. Overall, he's got a solid stroke that could be a key component to his game. Taking that away from him would be crippling.

Telling him to focus on his inside game has no teeth if he can just go run outside and shoot 20 foot jumpers whenever he feels like it. The going gets tough, he runs away. This isn't playground ball. There has been an illness inserted in far too many bigmen by watching players like Webb (unfortunately) and Garnett as they grew up -- they all want to shoot jumpers, because you know what? Its easier than working inside. If Spencer does not work inside, who does? He's not even a PF -- he's a center. Largest player on the floor. If he does not learn how to play inside now, while he's young, he never will. He will drift out and become a jumpshooter and have to be dragged inside to do anything useful, and at that point the faster we unload his soft *** on some patsies the better.

 

[Superman]

I agree that he should focus on his inside game, but I think that telling him not to shoot from the outside is a mistake. It's a part of basketball, and just because he's a big man doesn't mean that he shouldn't be allowed to take open shots from the outside. I mean, we're not talking about Rashard Lewis here. We're not even talking about Dirk Nowitzki.

The minute he starts using a stepback jumper, I'm right there with you. But just because a big man shoots a jumper doesn't mean that he's soft. It could mean that he's well-rounded, and to restrict his ability to use all of his strengths on the court would hamper his development, I think. Being able to set a screen on the perimeter and then make the defense pay if they don't stick with you is an invaluable asset in a big man.

It's not about him being afraid to go to the post. Run some plays for him. Get him the ball where he can score down low. Space the floor out. How much of that do we do anymore?

 

[Gary]

As long as Martin plays poor defense he will never be a leader. A leader needs to be the one who gets in your face when your not getting the job done. But, Martin will never be able to do that with his weak man & help defense. People in glass houses shouldn't throw bricks.

As far as trading Martin, I agree people shouldn't be talking about it, we should just do it. We need help everywhere, and it doesn't look like we're going to get much for Miller. And, after this year the only trade material we'll have is Salmons & Martin. So, depending on how we luck out in the draft, we'll probably not get all the pieces we need. So, unless we're going for the 1st pick in the 2010 draft, we might have to move Martin.

But, if everyone is willing to live with 20 or less wins next year and maybe the year after, will just keep him. He'll love being the 30pt scorer on the worst team in the league.

Huh? I said he shouldn't have to be the leader but every team needs a guy that can score, and K-Mart gives the Kings that. The Kings shouldn't even be talking about trading Martin because he can be in future plans.

 

[FakeInjury]

I wouldn't mind his outside shooting(make/miss) if his form was proper. end.

 

[ZanesvilleFan]

As long as Martin plays poor defense he will never be a leader. A leader needs to be the one who gets in your face when your not getting the job done. But, Martin will never be able to do that with his weak man & help defense. People in glass houses shouldn't throw bricks.

As far as trading Martin, I agree people shouldn't be talking about it, we should just do it. We need help everywhere, and it doesn't look like we're going to get much for Miller. And, after this year the only trade material we'll have is Salmons & Martin. So, depending on how we luck out in the draft, we'll probably not get all the pieces we need. So, unless we're going for the 1st pick in the 2010 draft, we might have to move Martin.

But, if everyone is willing to live with 20 or less wins next year and maybe the year after, will just keep him. He'll love being the 30pt scorer on the worst team in the league.

This is Kind of funny...but...If you are going to move Kevin PLEASE make it on the East Coast Somewhere...

 

[D-Rock]

Its not that i don't think spencer is a decent player, he is. He just isn't one of these 5 guys, and he shouldn't even try because it's nearly futile. If he gets over that sophmore slump, anything is possible. But right now, he is shooting himself in the foot.

"Sophmore(sic) slump"??? Are you for real? Spencer has FAR exceeded what I expected out of him this year.

He was shown that he is not Brad 2.0. Yes, he is a good outside shooter, like Miller (suck it dude, Hawes CAN shoot), and he can pass, but he is more athletic, active on defense, and a shot blocker as well. Also, he's shown that he's a clutch guy.

Martin might be the best player on the Kings right now, but Hawes has the potential to steal that title from him. Right now, I'd part with Martin before Hawes. And that's not a total knock on Kevin, because I'd expect something really good in return for him.

Oh yeah, and Spencer is going to be the leader of this team, possibly by next year. He has a chip on his shoulder and is just cocky enough, without quite entering into jerk territory, to be a good leader. That's something Martin will never have, even if he does want to be the leader.

Real leaders don't talk about wanting to be the team leader, they just do it. The pretenders (Bibby, Martin) can talk all they want, but it's futile. That's not the way to get your teammates behind you, aside from quotes in the media.

 

[D-Rock]

I wouldn't mind his outside shooting(make/miss) if his form was proper. end.

Cool, let's also tell Martin to stop shooting outside because of his form.

 

[bajaden]

It's easy to have 110% of something tangible. If you have $100, 110% of that would be $110 dollars. Unfortunately, that does not apply to something like the Kings' defensive effort last night. 110% of zero is still zero.

My math teacher is turning over in his grave. Which, when I last checked was 100% full of dirt.

 

[bajaden]

I will vent a little since this is the thread to do so...

First off FIRE NATT, and trade Beno! If nobody will take Beno just give him a black hefty trash bag and tell him to get inside it, and put him out on the curb.

Trade the guys that don't matter to the Kings future like Miller, Salmons, and let the other vets with no value like Moore, Thomas, Douby, Williams expire. Keep Garcia, Martin, Thompson, Hawes, and maybe Brown.

I don't know hat's with all this "trade Martin" crap. Every good team needs a guy that can score. Martin is a damn fine scorer. He does not necessarily need to be the leader, or the leader does not need to be the highest scorer on the team. I like Martins game, and think we should keep him.

Gary, I'm seriously starting to believe you don't like Beno.

 

[tyrant]

It's easy to have 110% of something tangible. If you have $100, 110% of that would be $110 dollars. Unfortunately, that does not apply to something like the Kings' defensive effort last night. 110% of zero is still zero.

huh? 110% of $100 is $110? you cant give 10% of something you dont have. if i have a $100 in my pocket and you asked for 110%, i could not whip out $110. mathmatically it looks right, but its so wrong. because if you divide 110/100 it gives you 1.10. move the decimal and you have your 110. 100% is the max percentage.

 

[Bricklayer]

My math teacher is turning over in his grave. Which, when I last checked was 100% full of dirt.

Well now...technically I think it would depend on whether you are talking about a closed or an open system. In a closed system, you can never exceed 100%. If I have a pile of apples in front of me, and all we care about is that pile of apples, then I can never have more than 100% of the apples in that pile. It represents the entire apple universe. In an open system however I can certainly have more than 100% of those apples. I just reach over to the apple basket next to me and add 10% more. Thus having 110% as many apples as I did before (although the new pile of apples, with the 10% extra is now again 100% of itself).

However I think I would consider effort a closed system. There is only so much effort you have to give, and you can't borrow more effort from somebody else. You can only give a higher percentage of the maximum possible effort you exert. You COULD however, give 110% of the effort you actually did exert last game, if you exerted less than 100%. If you exerted only 60% of effort last game, you could give 110% of that level of effort and exert 66% next game. But you could never give 10% more than your maximum possible (100%) effort.

If you would like I could put that in equation form with big E being maximum effort, and little e being effort actually exerted in any particular game and....

 

[VF21]

Um, did you just reach over and take those extra apples? If so, those are the ill-gotten gains of an illegal activity. Shame on you.

 

[Warhawk]

Well now...technically I think it would depend on whether you are talking about a closed or an open system. In a closed system, you can never exceed 100%. If I have a pile of apples in front of me, and all we care about is that pile of apples, then I can never have more than 100% of the apples in that pile. It represents the entire apple universe. In an open system however I can certainly have more than 100% of those apples. I just reach over to the apple basket next to me and add 10% more. Thus having 110% as many apples as I did before (although the new pile of apples, with the 10% extra is now again 100% of itself).

However I think I would consider effort a closed system. There is only so much effort you have to give, and you can't borrow more effort from somebody else. You can only give a higher percentage of the maximum possible effort you exert. You COULD however, give 110% of the effort you actually did exert last game, if you exerted less than 100%. If you exerted only 60% of effort last game, you could give 110% of that level of effort and exert 66% next game. But you could never give 10% more than your maximum possible (100%) effort.

If you would like I could put that in equation form with big E being maximum effort, and little e being effort actually exerted in any particular game and....

I think I see another addition to your grades taking shape....

 

[Spike]

Faulty mathematics and grammar? It could get ugly.

[vent]

While we're on the subject:

there
their
they're

Ladies and gents, these three are not interchangeable, but we tend to believe they are.

When the Kings travel to Boston, they're going to get their butts kicked, and there will be much sadness in Sacramento.

Don't get me started on plurals and possessives...

[/vent]

 

[GoGoGadget]

there
their
they're

Ladies and gents, these three are not interchangeable, but we tend to believe they are.

And, for the record, come on =/= common. Ever.

 

[Warhawk]

And, for the record, come on =/= common. Ever.

Oh, come on you two, let's not get too wrapped up in posting grammer rules to each other.

 

[Dime Dropper]

Oh, come on you two, let's not get too wrapped up in posting grammer rules to each other.

I should of eek:) seen this thread earlier. But I shouldn't have )) been so quick to correct others.

 

[Jerryaki]

we are at such a low point to argue grammar. i don't know whether kings fans will weather this dark time.

 

[Gary]

Gary, I'm seriously starting to believe you don't like Beno.

heh.. It's funny because last year I liked him.. Then this year after he got that contract I decided I would sit and dissect his game, and realized that he is pretty much an average PG on a bad team, and a bench warmer on a good team. He makes too many real bad mistakes, and gets into this "tunnel vision" state of mind where he ignores all his open teammates and tries to split double/triple teams and turns the ball over or takes a bad shot.

A good PG to me does not necessarily need to rack up the assists. He needs to be able to see the floor and react as the game changes. Beno does not do that very well and the turnover thing is just icing on the cake for me. He's just not very good and now we are stuck with him for years and years.

 

[Entity]

I a with you. I thought he was good enough to have earned that contract. Like you I watched more closely and he isn't earning it now.

Question is was he better last year?? or is it the same?

 

[Gary]

Now my issue with this whole thing is why didn't Petrie do this last year? Take a look at all his shortcomings that the normal fan (like myself) would not have seen because we were just happy to have someone besides Orion Greene.