What's It Going to Take...
- Thread starter Kingster
- Start date
bajaden
Hall of Famer
If were going to be realistic, and hopefully thats what the Maloff's are going to be, there's only so much you could expect any coach to accomplish with the current team. Its a team in transition, populated with a roster made up of one half young, and one half experienced players.
Is it a team that should be better than it is? I think so. If not in wins and losses, at least in consistancy of effort with competitivness. I think that if the team continues to improve, and shows signs of having some sort of respectfull identity, then Natt should be considered as the next permanent coach.
Considering the recent past, I'm using the word "permanent" loosely.
Is it a team that should be better than it is? I think so. If not in wins and losses, at least in consistancy of effort with competitivness. I think that if the team continues to improve, and shows signs of having some sort of respectfull identity, then Natt should be considered as the next permanent coach.
Considering the recent past, I'm using the word "permanent" loosely.
TheFifthMookie
Bench
This question is amazingly easy for me to answer:
Limit the number, and size of blowout losses.
Be competitive in most games (win, or lose by less than 10pts)
While playing the young guys.
While showing that there's some kind of game plan.
Limit the number, and size of blowout losses.
Be competitive in most games (win, or lose by less than 10pts)
While playing the young guys.
While showing that there's some kind of game plan.
One of the points that has come up over and over here is that people want a coach who can "show evidence of a plan" (here "game plan").
What in the world does this mean? It's shorthand for something, but I honestly don't know what. Can someone explain exactly what sort of plan folks are talking about here? What should the plan entail? What sorts of evidence would convince you that Kenny Natt has a plan? What sorts of evidence convinced you that Reggie Theus did not have a plan? Because this idea keeps cropping up and I honestly don't get it.
I would understand what is meant by a GM having a plan - it would basically be all about roster construction. When does Kenny Thomas' contract come off of the books? What do we expect the salary cap/luxury tax to be in 2012, and where will our roster stand relative to it? During which future years are there expected to be good free agents that we might be able to sign? What do future drafts look like? Who are potential trading partners, and what are their priorities? Should I give the mid-level exception to a stop-gap player in the hopes that they are not needed in two years, even though I'm paying the for five? Will there be a trade market for that MLE player in three years?
This is the sort of thing we do all the time here. But it's GM-ing, not coaching. Now I haven't played on an organized sports team since Little League (and saying that Little League was organized is being generous). So maybe I don't have a great view of what a coach is supposed to do, but here's my notion:
1. Handle egos
2. Distribute playing time, and manage line-ups
3. Run practice
4. Implement defensive and offensive schemes for general purpose play
5. Study opponents, determine tendencies, and adjust defensive and offensive schemes on an opponent-by-opponent basis
6. Make in-game adjustments to deal with what is successful and what is not.
7. Call set offensive and defensive plays as necessary from the sideline.
8. Draw up specific offensive (defensive?) plays designed for the specific situation during crunch time.
9. Work with individual players to improve all aspects of their game (especially deficient ones) during practice, and provide specific direction (e.g. "don't fade on your jump shot") during game time as necessary
Anyway, I'm sure I'm missing some things here, but you get the gist. And none of what seems to me to be coaching falls into what I would call a "plan". It's not looking towards the future, it's dealing with winning games now, with the team you have. Where does planning come in?
TheFifthMookie
Bench
Having a game plan means being able to decide how to best utilize the team's strengths and mask its weaknesses. Seems to me this is done with a offensive and defensive scheme. Some examples:
What offense did the kings run under Theus?
How about the Suns under D'Antoni? Kings under Adleman? Knicks under D'Antoni? Lakers or Bulls under Jackson?
What defensive style did the kings have under Theus?
Compare to the Pistons under Brown, Spurs under Pop, Jazz under Sloan.
I used the 'best' examples of each, but you get the idea. Those teams have some sort of identity, and that identity is generally attributed to the coach and his staff.
Adleman ran less of the Princeton offense (high post) when his players included Ron Artest and Bonzi Wells, yet the Kings still had a definable offense. I don't know, or even care what offense or defensive plans we use, I just want to know that there -is- an identity, a "game plan", if you will.
TheFifthMookie
Bench
I think that of those, 2-8 are the "game plan" I was referring to.
I think we want the same thing here, but just call it something different. I suppose a harder question to answer would be 'how do we the fans know if there's a 'game plan' or not?'
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
You can't be wrong about this next coach, and whoever it is is of course going to receive milions of dollars over at least a 2 year period. So its not enough here for Natt just not to fail. He'll have to do something pretty special. And for his future that would likely be havin the team playing good and cohesive ball with an identificabel identity by the last couple of months of the season, and doing it while playng the kids (who would be the guys who will be here on the future watch of the next coach). For me that would not mean winning necessarily (indeed, winning messes up the future), but for the Maloofs it likely does.
What you don't want to do is end up just reupping he interim guy because you don't really have any better ideas and what does it matter anyway sinc we're rebuilding. Natt needs to put on a little show. Otherwise go get one of the names out there that there is buzz or experience around.
What you don't want to do is end up just reupping he interim guy because you don't really have any better ideas and what does it matter anyway sinc we're rebuilding. Natt needs to put on a little show. Otherwise go get one of the names out there that there is buzz or experience around.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
Except for the last bullet item, I like your answer because they are measurable. Regarding game plan, I just don't see how you can ask Natt to come up with it because you're asking him for potentially to come up with an entirely new offense, or defense for that matter. That ain't going to happen. He's going to have to tinker with what offense/defense he because of time constraints. He'd need the off-season to come up with something entirely new.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
I'm thinking that if Natt does reasonably well, however you define that, then the Maloofs would only replace him with a guy with previous head NBA coaching experience (any assistant is going to have more unknowns than Natt by the end of the season). But then the question is: Are they willing to pay for it?
He's our interim coach for the rest of the season. I'm pretty sure I'll have a good idea which side of the fence I'll land on sometime around April 15, 2009.
TheFifthMookie
Bench
I like the measurability angle, and yeah, "game plan" isn't easily measurable, and I sincerely hope that Geoff and whoever else is making the call look at those things, measure them (PT, scores, etc) and use that as a resource for their decisionmaking.
From the perspective as 'fan', I know I won't actually measure any of those things, so how I feel at the end of the year will be a summation of my individual viewing experiences of kings games, what I hear in interviews on the radio, and what I read in the paper and on here.
I think its fair to assume that even if Kenny Natt has the best gameplan ready to go, he may not get to implement it in the team fully before the end of the year, since he did not have a training camp and has a limited number of practices between now and then.
Given that, as a fan, what I'd like to see from the 'gameplan' is some structure in playing time, as injuries allow. I'd like to see some sets or plays called somewhat regularly, I'd like to hear from the coach or players or analysts about the defensive approach outside of "try harder", Weakside rotation? use the zone when X happens? or whatever.
Even if the game plan isn't obvious, if Kenny Natt plays youth and the team's in most of the games (win or lose), I'm for bringing him back next year for the most part.
kingsfan101
Starter
Well, it's measurable to some extent. Let's consider some of the things we would like to see
On defense
Rebounding
Blocked Shots
Opponent Field goal percentage
3 pt percentage
Turnovers forced
On offense
FG%, 3pt FG%
Number of 3pts taken per game, particularly by the bigs
Number of turnovers
Offensive rebounds
Number of assists
Some of these are not entirely a new plan thing, but a plan makes a difference. For example, a consistent rotation pattern, defensive schemes (zone or man to man, etc.), shall reflect on the numbers above.
More than anything else, there are two things I would like the coach to do.
First, the team needs to establish an identify. Are we more of a run and gun team (number of field goal attempts), or a slow it down half court team? How much are we sharing the ball (number of assists)? Are we a jump shooting team (points in paint; Right now, we are, and we need to establish a low post presence)? On defense, how much zone are we playing?
Two, the kids need to see time and develop. So, they not only need to be on court, they need to get their fundamentals right, and get them right now. They need to focus on defense, and attempt to reduce turnovers. Greene, and Hawes in particular, need to tone down their love for the 3pt shot.
If we achieve the above, losing consistently shall be easier (though blowouts shall still not be fun).
Also, finally, I would like to see consistent rotations, with more time for kids. But a lot of that is on Geoff.
Thanks for answering.
I'm not 100% clear on how you're using the term 'game plan' (and I'll assume that it's essentially the same as other people's usage of the term) but I'm a lot closer. What I listed 2-8 are what I would really consider "coaching" (while #1 is a more of an occupational hazard, and #9, while essentially coaching, is probably more properly left to the assistants). So if a coach weren't doing 2-8, to me it wouldn't be that he doesn't have a game plan, but rather that he's not doing his job.
But I think what you really mean by a 'game plan' is set offensive (e.g. Princeton offense, Triangle offense) and defensive (not sure...as very few pro teams play much zone and I don't know how much variation there is in man defenses) strategies rather than just kicking the players out there and saying, "play hard, pass the ball, take open shots and layups if you can".
That's where your question (how do we tell?) becomes relevant - it's the kind of thing that's obvious for a run-n-gun offense, but not so obvious for a middle of the road strategy. For instance, I know the Lakers run a Triangle, but if you showed me a game between two European teams, one running a rigid Triangle and one not, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't notice unless you said something, and even then I'm not confident I could tell you which team was running the Triangle. Shoot, when I watch a college game I don't even notice when a team is playing man or zone unless I'm consciously thinking about it. That's partially a measure of my lack of big-picture basketball knowledge but I don't expect it's easy to "show" that you've got a consistent offensive scheme.
est.1999
Starter
there's really nothing he can do. This isn't a situation like singletary with the 49ers. Natts only got so many options he can go to where as singletary had a qb he could go to and a defense that he knew needed adjustments. Interim coaches in basketball are nothing compared to NFL interim coaches who really have a chance to prove themselves.
