What is up with De'Aaron Fox?

See the bolded parts above. That is absolutely not a Fox strength. Dudes first and second instinct is to penetrate and score. The few times he does pass, the teammate is almost always on his left, where his dominant hand is. Fox rarely drives and passes to his right side and he rarely diversifies his passing (it’s almost always a mid level, one handed line drive; no bounce pass, no lobs, no touch, rarely with both hands).
Very true. I'll add that he rarely passes it backwards to the shooters spotted up on the angles, which is something Chris Paul is excellent at. He did make one such pass in the Sixers game though I believe to Barnes and i said to myself GREAT PASS please do it more
 
See the bolded parts above. That is absolutely not a Fox strength. Dudes first and second instinct is to penetrate and score. The few times he does pass, the teammate is almost always on his left, where his dominant hand is. Fox rarely drives and passes to his right side and he rarely diversifies his passing (it’s almost always a mid level, one handed line drive; no bounce pass, no lobs, no touch, rarely with both hands).
I agree which is why I have said he was more a 2 guard. But in those games where he decided to kick it out he could be effective if surrounded by shooters.
 
I've always wondered why it's an 8 second rule when they get 9 to cross?
Well I suppose they do have 8 seconds, just that your shotclock doesn't go in smaller divisions so you end up effectively having 9.
Seems to me it's more like bad refereeing / bad math.

The shot clock starts at 24. When the 1st second passes, it goes to 23, 2nd second passes = 22, 3rd = 21, 4th = 20, 5th = 19, 6th = 18, 7th = 17, 8th = 16.

So, eight seconds have passed at the exact moment that the shot clock turns to 16. The whistle should be blown right then. But, the refs are either counting themselves or wait til the 16 goes away because it's easier. Heck, sometimes they don't call it until even later![/QUOTE]
 
I agree which is why I have said he was more a 2 guard. But in those games where he decided to kick it out he could be effective if surrounded by shooters.
It's not a matter of him being able to. He has all the tools in the world to do so.

The Ringer and Amick articles essentially question whether he's mature enough (hoops wise) to take that next step. I have always thought he was 3 to 4 years away from wanting to play more like Chris Paul rather than Russ. Where impacting the game = controlling the pace rather than setting the pace. Maybe his lost speed will accelerate that timeline. Or maybe not. Regardless, I don't think the Kings will give him those 3 to 4 years to figure it out. He'll be gone by then.

Especially since they already have Hali, who is already elite at controlling the pace.
 
Seems to me it's more like bad refereeing / bad math.

The shot clock starts at 24. When the 1st second passes, it goes to 23, 2nd second passes = 22, 3rd = 21, 4th = 20, 5th = 19, 6th = 18, 7th = 17, 8th = 16.

So, eight seconds have passed at the exact moment that the shot clock turns to 16. The whistle should be blown right then. But, the refs are either counting themselves or wait til the 16 goes away because it's easier. Heck, sometimes they don't call it until even later!
I think that the shot clock turns to 23 immediately when the ball touches the players hands (so its 23,9 seconds at that moment). When the clock shows 16 its actually 16,9 seconds so the violation happens only if it goes to 15 (15,9 seconds)
 
I think that the shot clock turns to 23 immediately when the ball touches the players hands (so its 23,9 seconds at that moment). When the clock shows 16 its actually 16,9 seconds so the violation happens only if it goes to 15 (15,9 seconds)
This is completely false. The moment the ball is legally touched, the shot clock is started and will hit 23 seconds exactly after 1 second has passed. Poster Jose above is 100% correct.
 
This is completely false. The moment the ball is legally touched, the shot clock is started and will hit 23 seconds exactly after 1 second has passed. Poster Jose above is 100% correct.
https://nesn.com/2013/05/nbas-seemi...d-violation-rule-really-not-that-complicated/
The countdown clock on the shot clock works the same way, only backwards. For the first 19 seconds of the possession, the shot clock posts only full seconds. When there are 16 seconds on the shot clock, there are actually 16 seconds plus a few tenths. If the refs called an eight-second violation as soon as the clock hit :16, they would actually be whistling the play dead at :16.9 — robbing the offensive team of almost a full second.
 
Very true. I'll add that he rarely passes it backwards to the shooters spotted up on the angles, which is something Chris Paul is excellent at. He did make one such pass in the Sixers game though I believe to Barnes and i said to myself GREAT PASS please do it more
Me too. Tyrese drives w/options to shoot, make an interior pass, or dish to the perimeter. All options are live and his decision making is very good. If Given his superior driving abilities, if De'Aaron presented the same kind of genuine triple-threat... my goodness.
 
Me too. Tyrese drives w/options to shoot, make an interior pass, or dish to the perimeter. All options are live and his decision making is very good. If Given his superior driving abilities, if De'Aaron presented the same kind of genuine triple-threat... my goodness.
yep it was even worse when Bogi was here. Sometimes I thought Fox purposefully ignored him.
 
Just because some dipcrap writer says this, doesn't make this true. This makes no sense. He has this backwards (thinking at 16 that means it could be 16.9 seconds left). So, according to his logic, when the clock displays a full "24" then that could be as high as 24.9?? Also, I know for a FACT that in collegiate and high school basketball they have a 10-second count and when the clock hits 25 (for a 35 second shot clock) it's a violation.

Just think about it (like Jose said):

the clock starts at 24.....when it clicks to 23 that means exactly 1.0 seconds has run off. While it's stuck at 23, before turning to 22, it means 1.0 to 1.9 seconds has run off, but as soon as it hits 22 that means 2.0 seconds has run off.

So....

23.....we are at 1.0 seconds
22.....we are at 2.0 seconds
21.....we are at 3.0 seconds
20.....we are at 4.0 seconds
19.....we are at 5.0 seconds
18.....we are at 6.0 seconds
17.....we are at 7.0 seconds
16.....we are at 8.0 seconds

While it is displaying "16" we would be anywhere between 8.0 and 8.9 seconds, which is a violation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

So, unless they have a different way of interpreting this rule that we don't know about, it should be a violation when the clock hits 16.
 
Just because some dipcrap writer says this, doesn't make this true. This makes no sense. He has this backwards (thinking at 16 that means it could be 16.9 seconds left). So, according to his logic, when the clock displays a full "24" then that could be as high as 24.9?? Also, I know for a FACT that in collegiate and high school basketball they have a 10-second count and when the clock hits 25 (for a 35 second shot clock) it's a violation.

Just think about it (like Jose said):

the clock starts at 24.....when it clicks to 23 that means exactly 1.0 seconds has run off. While it's stuck at 23, before turning to 22, it means 1.0 to 1.9 seconds has run off, but as soon as it hits 22 that means 2.0 seconds has run off.

So....

23.....we are at 1.0 seconds
22.....we are at 2.0 seconds
21.....we are at 3.0 seconds
20.....we are at 4.0 seconds
19.....we are at 5.0 seconds
18.....we are at 6.0 seconds
17.....we are at 7.0 seconds
16.....we are at 8.0 seconds

While it is displaying "16" we would be anywhere between 8.0 and 8.9 seconds, which is a violation. Why is this so difficult to understand?

So, unless they have a different way of interpreting this rule that we don't know about, it should be a violation when the clock hits 16.
Why would you call a person "dipcrap" when all he tried to do is explain to people like you this exact thing that many didnt know/didnt understand?

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...ng-the-nbas-2011-12-season-points-of-emphasis
This offseason, the NBA has finally fixed the glitch: No longer will the shot clock read 24 seconds when the game clock reads 23.9 seconds, and no longer will the mystery of the vanishing shot clock violation go unsolved.

Accordingly, the eight-second backcourt violation will occur at 15 seconds, not at 16.
Its exactly like the dipcrap writer said. When the clock changes to 16 its actually 16,9 and so on.
 
Ok, with all the logic (or illogic) stated above, consider what happens when the clock hits "0". Lights and buzzers start going off right as the "0" appears. It is not 0.9 seconds left when the "0" appears. Otherwise there would be a slight delay when the the alarms sound.

Just look at the replays at the end of quarters when the refs try to determine if a made shot is good or not. The slo-mo shows it clearly.
 
Ok, with all the logic (or illogic) stated above, consider what happens when the clock hits "0". Lights and buzzers start going off right as the "0" appears. It is not 0.9 seconds left when the "0" appears. Otherwise there would be a slight delay when the the alarms sound.

Just look at the replays at the end of quarters when the refs try to determine if a made shot is good or not. The slo-mo shows it clearly.
https://nesn.com/2013/05/nbas-seemi...d-violation-rule-really-not-that-complicated/
In the final five seconds of the shot clock, tenths of a second get added. Again, think of the stopwatch. If the players, officials, coaches and fans could not read tenths of a second at the end of the clock, the shot clock would read :00 for a full second before the buzzer sounded. Instead, we see the timer count down in tenths of a second to ultimate zero, :00.00. Knowing how many tenths of a second are on the clock is vital, so a team knows whether it has enough time for a shot or just a tip-in attempt.
So when the clock hits 5 (actually 5,9) it goes for a second and continues at 4,9 after that. An example at 1:17
 
Seriously? He's the fastest ball handler in the league. He's also very difficult to stay in front of one-on-one even when he doesn't have a running start because of his side-to-side agility. He's an instant fast break when we do manage to secure defensive rebounds and he demands double teams or at least the other team's defense needs to game plan to stop him by packing the paint. I get that he's been playing poorly this season and we haven't managed to win with him leading the team even when he was putting up All Star level numbers last season but that doesn't mean he's not elite at anything.
He was the fastest ball handler in the league. How many fast break layups do you think he's made so far this season? I'd estimate five or less. In fact, I think Barnes has made more fast break layups pushing the ball than Fox has so far.
 
IMO, the reason behind Fox's surly interview is that he got the max contract, which comes with max expectations, which he resents. In other words, he can't handle the pressure. He's obviously not within a light year in performing at a reasonable basketball fan would expect of a max player. He knows it, everyone knows it, and he doesn't even want to talk about it. Leave him alone. The surly prickliness is just deflection: Don't ask him tough, direct questions, don't address directly his failings or the expectations that come with being a max player. It's implied: It's not his fault. It's the coach, the organization, whomever, but just don't bother him. He's going to do his thing, get his max $$$, and to hell with it.
 
IMO, the reason behind Fox's surly interview is that he got the max contract, which comes with max expectations, which he resents. In other words, he can't handle the pressure. He's obviously not within a light year in performing at a reasonable basketball fan would expect of a max player. He knows it, everyone knows it, and he doesn't even want to talk about it. Leave him alone. The surly prickliness is just deflection: Don't ask him tough, direct questions, don't address directly his failings or the expectations that come with being a max player. It's implied: It's not his fault. It's the coach, the organization, whomever, but just don't bother him. He's going to do his thing, get his max $$$, and to hell with it.
Fox and Buddy got paid and went into I don’t give a f*ck mode. Kudos to them for playing the game.
That said, that generation of players need to go. Culture starts with a house cleaning.
 
IMO, the reason behind Fox's surly interview is that he got the max contract, which comes with max expectations, which he resents. In other words, he can't handle the pressure. He's obviously not within a light year in performing at a reasonable basketball fan would expect of a max player. He knows it, everyone knows it, and he doesn't even want to talk about it. Leave him alone. The surly prickliness is just deflection: Don't ask him tough, direct questions, don't address directly his failings or the expectations that come with being a max player. It's implied: It's not his fault. It's the coach, the organization, whomever, but just don't bother him. He's going to do his thing, get his max $$$, and to hell with it.
Im sure there must be more, but I can only remember one fox dunk this season. This is just not the same player athletically that he was the first couple of years. He’s turned from a gazelle slithering through defenders to a bulldog charging into the paint. If his speed and athleticism are really already on the downward swing at his age, he’s got some major issues if he can’t get his shot going.
 
Im sure there must be more, but I can only remember one fox dunk this season. This is just not the same player athletically that he was the first couple of years. He’s turned from a gazelle slithering through defenders to a bulldog charging into the paint. If his speed and athleticism are really already on the downward swing at his age, he’s got some major issues if he can’t get his shot going.
Who knows? It might take all of next summer to undo what he's done or not done this past off-season. It's very frustrating, and maybe even more frustrating is we don't hear "real talk" about his physical condition.
 
Im sure there must be more, but I can only remember one fox dunk this season. This is just not the same player athletically that he was the first couple of years. He’s turned from a gazelle slithering through defenders to a bulldog charging into the paint. If his speed and athleticism are really already on the downward swing at his age, he’s got some major issues if he can’t get his shot going.
What is he, 25? No way he’s on the decline physically. He may have gotten too buff, which is funny to say because he still looks lanky out there.

What’s more likely is that he just hit that “wall of hopelessness” that comes along with being a longtime King and checked out.

If we trade him he’ll probably go right back to being a 25+ppg scorer.

Maybe he’ll snap out of it now that Luke is gone. We shall see.
 
Im sure there must be more, but I can only remember one fox dunk this season. This is just not the same player athletically that he was the first couple of years. He’s turned from a gazelle slithering through defenders to a bulldog charging into the paint. If his speed and athleticism are really already on the downward swing at his age, he’s got some major issues if he can’t get his shot going.
It's why I don't agree that a high level basketball player, who's biggest advantage is speed and leaping ability, should be trying to add significant weight in one off season. Let it happen over the course of a few years...and if it doesn't happen, then don't worry about. Just improve your skills
 
What is he, 25? No way he’s on the decline physically. He may have gotten too buff, which is funny to say because he still looks lanky out there.

What’s more likely is that he just hit that “wall of hopelessness” that comes along with being a longtime King and checked out.

If we trade him he’ll probably go right back to being a 25+ppg scorer.

Maybe he’ll snap out of it now that Luke is gone. We shall see.
It's not a matter of decline physically. I have to believe it was a misguided training program for strength and putting on weight. Who knows, he may have done a bunch of stuff on his own, not realizing what could happen
 
24 next month.

I think he has a future but we should do what selling clubs do. Maybe accept the reality that other non-American sports leagues do and offload their young stars before they become sunk cost depreciating assets. Then if we ever get the right mix of talent at the right time we can do what Leicester did and shock the world.
I agree with blowing things up cause this team ain’t going nowhere. If Fox has to go then so be it
 
What is he, 25? No way he’s on the decline physically. He may have gotten too buff, which is funny to say because he still looks lanky out there.

What’s more likely is that he just hit that “wall of hopelessness” that comes along with being a longtime King and checked out.

If we trade him he’ll probably go right back to being a 25+ppg scorer.

Maybe he’ll snap out of it now that Luke is gone. We shall see.
This so-called "wall of hopelessness" is BS: Woe is me; I'm the victim, it's the environment, it's the organization, it's the building, it's the fans, it's the city, it's climate change, whatever. Fox wants to recede into the background, not take command of the ship. If anything, the pressure is greater on Fox now than before Walton got hired. Now the Walton excuse is no longer there. It's not getting easier from Fox from here on forward. He's got to man-up. He's not a kid anymore.
 
Why would you call a person "dipcrap" when all he tried to do is explain to people like you this exact thing that many didnt know/didnt understand?

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...ng-the-nbas-2011-12-season-points-of-emphasis


Its exactly like the dipcrap writer said. When the clock changes to 16 its actually 16,9 and so on.
You quoted a 10 year old article to support your failed position. Here is a quote right out of that article:

"Referees have long known that a typical 24-second basketball shot clock begins at 24.9 seconds (displayed as 24 seconds), with a buzzer sounding once the clock reaches 0.9 seconds remaining (displayed as 0 seconds)."

So, your source, is trying to say that the 24-second shot clock is actually 24.9 seconds. Do you fail to see how inaccurate that is???
 

Capt. Factorial

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Staff member
You quoted a 10 year old article to support your failed position. Here is a quote right out of that article:

"Referees have long known that a typical 24-second basketball shot clock begins at 24.9 seconds (displayed as 24 seconds), with a buzzer sounding once the clock reaches 0.9 seconds remaining (displayed as 0 seconds)."

So, your source, is trying to say that the 24-second shot clock is actually 24.9 seconds. Do you fail to see how inaccurate that is???
If you read carefully, you would see two things. First - that this (older) by-convention understanding of the shot clock runs from "24.9" to "0.9" seconds, which is 24 seconds. The buzzer went off at "0.9", as it says in your quoted material. Second - this older convention has been eliminated and replaced with a new convention.

The current way the shot clock works is actually quite simple to understand. The shot clock is measured in tenths of a second, thus it starts at 24.0 and expires at 0.0, exactly 24 seconds. However, until the end of the shot clock (under 5 seconds) the decimal portion of the shot clock is simply not displayed. Thus, the shot clock starts at 24[.0] seconds, and one tenth of a second after the ball is inbounded changes to 23[.9] seconds. The next time you watch an NBA game, please watch the shot clock upon inbounding. You should see that the shot clock turns to "23" one tenth of a second after inbounding, not one full second after inbounding.

Because of this, when the shot clock turns to 16, the actual time on the shot clock is 16[.9] seconds, and the time elapsed from 24[.0] seconds is 7.1 seconds - an 8-second violation has not yet occurred. The 8-second violation occurs when the shot clock turns to 15[.9] and 8.1 seconds have elapsed.

Although it is tempting to believe that when the shot clock reads "16", the second that is encompassed there is [16.0 - 15.1], and that WAS the case before the NBA added tenths under 5 seconds (see the article above), this is no longer true. When the shot clock reads "16", the second that is encompassed is [16.9 - 16.0].
 
This so-called "wall of hopelessness" is BS: Woe is me; I'm the victim, it's the environment, it's the organization, it's the building, it's the fans, it's the city, it's climate change, whatever. Fox wants to recede into the background, not take command of the ship. If anything, the pressure is greater on Fox now than before Walton got hired. Now the Walton excuse is no longer there. It's not getting easier from Fox from here on forward. He's got to man-up. He's not a kid anymore.
I’m morseo saying it’s a phenomenon than making an excuse for Fox, because I agree with you.

He’s getting paid the big bucks, and he has the talent (debatable lately, but I’m still a believer) to push this team out of the Kangz-zone.

But I don’t think we should just discount how frustration could turn into apathy. This franchise is a dumpster fire, and that’s not debatable. But it is on Fox to fight through that and bring it every night.
 
He was the fastest ball handler in the league. How many fast break layups do you think he's made so far this season? I'd estimate five or less. In fact, I think Barnes has made more fast break layups pushing the ball than Fox has so far.
Honestly, HB and Tyrese are the two who most often try to push it in transition, including off the other team's makes. (How often do we see Tyrese trying to grab the ball from the ref after, say, can offensive foul by the other side?) And therein lies part of the problem: as much as these guys seems to like each other personally, they too often play as if they're not *quite* on the same page.