What to do with Isaiah Thomas?

[rainmaker]

Disagree it's so much about which style of play you prefer. We need a style of play which suits our top players and puts them in a position to play to their strengths, rather than squeezing our top players into your preferred system. You tailor the system to the talents of your top players, not the opposite, forcing your top talents into your preferred system.

Our top two players right now are Cuz, then Reke, in that order. And the system and this conversation doesn't need to be an either/or proposition like some appear to be proposing. Can we run a high post offense similar to Adelman's which highlights Cuz's ability at the elbow extended? Yes we can. A high post offense based on misdirection would suit Cuz and Reke. We could also have a more motion based offense similar to Sloan's in Utah. That could also work. We could also have an offense based on mis direction which utilizes pick & rolls and post ups on the block rather than the high post, which is the difference between Pop's offense in SA and what we had with Rick. Either would work. Or it could be more iso heavy, like OKC/NY/Mia. Or it could be pick & roll heavy.

It's not as simple as implementing your favorite system. Yes, we need more ball movement and spacing but that's a generalization and doesn't expand on how you actually want our top talents to fit into the system.

I'll also add, ball movement or the lack of is generally a product of not having roles, or too many having the same role. If most under Smart were charged with being aggressive and looking to score, of course there will be less ball movement. And that is as much a problem with roles as it is the actual system/offense. Plug in role players, defensive guys and the ball movement almost immediately improves, and we saw that at times with Douglas/PP/Cole out there. Just having guys knowing scoring isn't what they're there for increases ball movement. It's not about ball movement just for the sake of ball movement.

One final aspect is no matter your system, it's iso play and iso talent which wins close games and in the playoffs. It generally comes down to what can your top 1-2 players do. Even if you hate iso play, at the end of games you need 1-2 players who can throw the ball too, clear out and have them create. Whether it's Lebron/Wade, Melo, Pierce, Dirk, Kobe, MJ, Webber, Malone, Duncan/Manu-now TP, Durant/Westbrook, Rose, DWill, etc, you need players who can create something out of nothing when the defense tightens up. Not having a clear go to guy who can create is why Ind struggled in the playoffs last year, it's why Utah didn't make it this year, it's why GS struggles at the end of tight games.

It's not just ball movement vs no ball movement. Play to the strengths of your top players and that can be accomplished in numerous system. And to win when it counts, you still need guys who can excel in iso situations. It's why NY is so much better with JR and Melo both going as one example.

 

[Kingster]

Disagree it's so much about which style of play you prefer. We need a style of play which suits our top players and puts them in a position to play to their strengths, rather than squeezing our top players into your preferred system. You tailor the system to the talents of your top players, not the opposite, forcing your top talents into your preferred system.

Our top two players right now are Cuz, then Reke, in that order. And the system and this conversation doesn't need to be an either/or proposition like some appear to be proposing. Can we run a high post offense similar to Adelman's which highlights Cuz's ability at the elbow extended? Yes we can. A high post offense based on misdirection would suit Cuz and Reke. We could also have a more motion based offense similar to Sloan's in Utah. That could also work. We could also have an offense based on mis direction which utilizes pick & rolls and post ups on the block rather than the high post, which is the difference between Pop's offense in SA and what we had with Rick. Either would work. Or it could be more iso heavy, like OKC/NY/Mia. Or it could be pick & roll heavy.

It's not as simple as implementing your favorite system. Yes, we need more ball movement and spacing but that's a generalization and doesn't expand on how you actually want our top talents to fit into the system.

I'll also add, ball movement or the lack of is generally a product of not having roles, or too many having the same role. If most under Smart were charged with being aggressive and looking to score, of course there will be less ball movement. And that is as much a problem with roles as it is the actual system/offense. Plug in role players, defensive guys and the ball movement almost immediately improves, and we saw that at times with Douglas/PP/Cole out there. Just having guys knowing scoring isn't what they're there for increases ball movement. It's not about ball movement just for the sake of ball movement.

One final aspect is no matter your system, it's iso play and iso talent which wins close games and in the playoffs. It generally comes down to what can your top 1-2 players do. Even if you hate iso play, at the end of games you need 1-2 players who can throw the ball too, clear out and have them create. Whether it's Lebron/Wade, Melo, Pierce, Dirk, Kobe, MJ, Webber, Malone, Duncan/Manu-now TP, Durant/Westbrook, Rose, DWill, etc, you need players who can create something out of nothing when the defense tightens up. Not having a clear go to guy who can create is why Ind struggled in the playoffs last year, it's why Utah didn't make it this year, it's why GS struggles at the end of tight games.

It's not just ball movement vs no ball movement. Play to the strengths of your top players and that can be accomplished in numerous system. And to win when it counts, you still need guys who can excel in iso situations. It's why NY is so much better with JR and Melo both going as one example.

I'd make a couple of distinctions. First, I'd make a distinction about best player. You're talking about offense, so it sounds like you think Cousins and Tyreke are the best offensive players. I'd say that's arguable. IT could easily be considered in the top two when it comes to offense. So why not throw him into the mix? Are you going to devise an offense around him? (My hunch says no.) Yes, Tyreke can rebound better and when he puts his mind to it, he is a better defender. So yes, you can argue that Tyreke is a better all-around player. But offense? I'd lean to IT. He's a better shooter, very good at penetration and finishing at the basket, has an intermediate shot, a runner, he is more creative, more versatile, and he can run a fast break. Frankly, about the only thing that Tyreke can do better than IT on offense is post up, and if you want a guy to take the ball end to end by himself, he's the man. If I lean over backwards, then maybe Tyreke can tie IT when it comes to offense, but that really gives me back strain.

Also, we don't have any good iso players. So why devise an iso offense around lousy iso players? Cousins is the best of what we have. But if we truly had a good iso player our record would have been much bettter than it was. In terms of isoing, probably the best thing we have going for us is Cousins isoing about 20 feet from the basket, which is sad that our 270pounder is isoing like a guard. He's certainly not a powerhouse inside, which common sense argues is what he should be doing. When the Kings hire another coach it is going to be interesting to see whether Cousins remains in his primary role as a high post center and his secondary role as our pg bringing the ball up the floor. Those are a couple of things that I'll be looking at to see if things are in fact changing for the better.

 

[Padrino]

I'd make a couple of distinctions. First, I'd make a distinction about best player. You're talking about offense, so it sounds like you think Cousins and Tyreke are the best offensive players. I'd say that's arguable. IT could easily be considered in the top two when it comes to offense. So why not throw him into the mix? Are you going to devise an offense around him? (My hunch says no.) Yes, Tyreke can rebound better and when he puts his mind to it, he is a better defender. So yes, you can argue that Tyreke is a better all-around player. But offense? I'd lean to IT. He's a better shooter, very good at penetration and finishing at the basket, has an intermediate shot, a runner, he is more creative, more versatile, and he can run a fast break. Frankly, about the only thing that Tyreke can do better than IT on offense is post up, and if you want a guy to take the ball end to end by himself, he's the man. If I lean over backwards, then maybe Tyreke can tie IT when it comes to offense, but that really gives me back strain.

Also, we don't have any good iso players. So why devise an iso offense around lousy iso players? Cousins is the best of what we have. But if we truly had a good iso player our record would have been much bettter than it was. In terms of isoing, probably the best thing we have going for us is Cousins isoing about 20 feet from the basket, which is sad that our 270pounder is isoing like a guard. He's certainly not a powerhouse inside, which common sense argues is what he should be doing. When the Kings hire another coach it is going to be interesting to see whether Cousins remains in his primary role as a high post center and his secondary role as our pg bringing the ball up the floor. Those are a couple of things that I'll be looking at to see if things are in fact changing for the better.

uhm... what? in about 31 mpg, evans averaged 15 ppg on 48% shooting. in about 31 mpg, cousins averaged 17 ppg on 47% shooting. the majority of their combined offense comes in isolation. in fact, there are few guards in the league who are able to score in iso at tyreke's efficiency. bump up both 'reke's and cousins' minutes to more acceptable 36 mpg averages, and all of a sudden you have two very good iso players. your claim is hogwash, friend, built on the flimsiness of your inherent bias, and reductive to a fault. having a truly good iso player doesn't necessarily improve a team's record. what kinda logic is that, particularly when the kings' team defense is as poor as it's been?

 

[Kingster]

uhm... what? in about 31 mpg, evans averaged 15 ppg on 48% shooting. in about 31 mpg, cousins averaged 17 ppg on 47% shooting. the majority of their combined offense comes in isolation. in fact, there are few guards in the league who are able to score in iso at tyreke's efficiency. bump up both 'reke's and cousins' minutes to more acceptable 36 mpg averages, and all of a sudden you have two very good iso players. your claim is hogwash, friend, built on the flimsiness of your inherent bias, and reductive to a fault. having a truly good iso player doesn't necessarily improve a team's record. what kinda logic is that, particularly when the kings' team defense is as poor as it's been?

Shooting percentage doesn't confer that a player is a good iso player. Check out these stats. Out of the top 30 players in FG% you can pick out maybe two (LBJ and Randolph) that are quality iso players. And if you go by stats, then you should have IT as the best iso player the Kings have. I'm an IT fan, but I think Cousins is better than IT in isolation because Cousins can get a shot off easier than IT, especially with very limited time on the clock. As far as Tyreke is concerned, he gets some of that efficiency in fast break situations, where his percentage is much higher than in iso situations.

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/field-goals/sort/fieldGoalPct