would we resign Chuck Hayes?

[Andriod_KiNg]

Give me a elite man to man defender over a guy that will block a shot out of bounds or have goal tending call.

 

[mac]

Give me a elite man to man defender over a guy that will block a shot out of bounds or have goal tending call.

It's not just about that though - having a big man who is able to contest shots and make it hard for the opponent to get easy buckets really finishes up the team defense, which is way more important than individual defense. It doesn't necessarily have to be an elite shotblocker statwise, but just someone who has length to challenge shots. Taller centers are also able to see the court better, and can really help if he communicates with the rest of the team, telling them what to do, where to rotate etc.

Ideally you'd try and have both.

 

[CVKingsfan]

Team chemistry is so important. I remember Dalembert talking through his agent last year during the season about his "lack of minutes," and "the way he was being utilized." To me, he was all about himself and not the team. Never was a vocal leader as a vet on a young team that desperately needed one. Good riddance. Everyone in the Kings ORGANIZATION brags about Hayes and his leadership, veteran presence, talking on defense, etc. They're genuinely happy he's there. Never heard that about Sammy whatsoever. And Hayes does have a odd sized heart which was revealed at the Cleveland Clinic. That was probably why the org had to void the deal. Couldn't take the risk of waiting on the 2nd opinion and possibly eating the entire contract if he couldn't play. Now he's back, seems like he was the top choice all along, gave him a "small" raise for the trouble, and we can all be excited about beating the Lakers Monday. Happy Holidays, everyone! Go Kings!

Ditto!!! (and root, root for DeRuyter @ FSU!)

 

[Bricklayer]

Give me a elite man to man defender over a guy that will block a shot out of bounds or have goal tending call.

Silly.

People just routinely, ROUTINELY around here miss the whole point of great big man defenders. It is not, nor has it ever been, about MAN defense. That's nice for your guards. But Dikembe Mutumbo, Zo Mourning, Ben Wallace, Dwight...these guys have not won a dozen DPOY awards because they are stopping their man. I mean they do, and that's nice. Always good to stop your own guy. But merely stopping your own guy makes a big man defender not much more important than a good SF defender, or a good SG defender. It probably makes him less important than a good PG defender, who may be able to disrupt the other team from setting up their offense.

The key to great big man defenders, the ENTIRE reason they are so incredibly valued and always there on great team after great team, is for their HELP defense. That's the ticket. Its not about stopping your own guy. Its about helping every single other player on the court to stop their men as well.

And yes BTW, Dalembert is pretty good at that. One of the better shotblockers to ever play the game actually (Top 50 currently, be Top 40 by end of the year), and a big rebounder to boot who can finish off the defensive possession. He's got warts. So do they all. But what that class of players does is so absolutely critical that warts are almost irrelevant except as a way to order the guys in the specialty.

 

[LA King Fan II]

I'm not sure Dalembert was on board physically or mentally to be an effective "Sacramento King" this year, so I think the fact we didn't get him might not matter.

I think Vlade's size was under-rated back in the good ole' days. He took up space and was no defensive specialist but definitely did the job.

Unfortunately I've never seen Cousins as anything but heavy legged and ground-bound so the inside is gonna be iffy. Happy that Hayes seems to be a good egg and tough player. Ultimately, the Kings will be more watchable (and likeable because of it).

Still hoping for AK47

 

[Superman]

Silly.

People just routinely, ROUTINELY around here miss the whole point of great big man defenders. It is not, nor has it ever been, about MAN defense. That's nice for your guards. But Dikembe Mutumbo, Zo Mourning, Ben Wallace, Dwight...these guys have not won a dozen DPOY awards because they are stopping their man. I mean they do, and that's nice. Always good to stop your own guy. But merely stopping your own guy makes a big man defender not much more important than a good SF defender, or a good SG defender. It probably makes him less important than a good PG defender, who may be able to disrupt the other team from setting up their offense.

The key to great big man defenders, the ENTIRE reason they are so incredibly valued and always there on great team after great team, is for their HELP defense. That's the ticket. Its not about stopping your own guy. Its about helping every single other player on the court to stop their men as well.

And yes BTW, Dalembert is pretty good at that. One of the better shotblockers to ever play the game actually (Top 50 currently, be Top 40 by end of the year), and a big rebounder to boot who can finish off the defensive possession. He's got warts. So do they all. But what that class of players does is so absolutely critical that warts are almost irrelevant except as a way to order the guys in the specialty.

+1...

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Silly.

People just routinely, ROUTINELY around here miss the whole point of great big man defenders. It is not, nor has it ever been, about MAN defense. That's nice for your guards. But Dikembe Mutumbo, Zo Mourning, Ben Wallace, Dwight...these guys have not won a dozen DPOY awards because they are stopping their man. I mean they do, and that's nice. Always good to stop your own guy. But merely stopping your own guy makes a big man defender not much more important than a good SF defender, or a good SG defender. It probably makes him less important than a good PG defender, who may be able to disrupt the other team from setting up their offense.

The key to great big man defenders, the ENTIRE reason they are so incredibly valued and always there on great team after great team, is for their HELP defense. That's the ticket. Its not about stopping your own guy. Its about helping every single other player on the court to stop their men as well.

And yes BTW, Dalembert is pretty good at that. One of the better shotblockers to ever play the game actually (Top 50 currently, be Top 40 by end of the year), and a big rebounder to boot who can finish off the defensive possession. He's got warts. So do they all. But what that class of players does is so absolutely critical that warts are almost irrelevant except as a way to order the guys in the specialty.

Essentially what it comes down to here is how much a player helps the overall team defense. It doesn't particularly matter how you keep the other team from scoring as long as you keep the other team from scoring. Man-to-man stops do count on the scoreboard, nor do blocks, nor does help defense, nor does number of times you intimidated somebody coming into the lane. That's all irrelevant, and points are all that matters.

Well, the best way to look at a player's impact on a team that takes into account everything they do, whether it's in the box score or not, is an on-court/off-court +/- measure. I do dislike +/- for a single game, but over the course of a season or two there's enough data to start to wash the randomness out and get a true picture of what's going on.

Chuck Hayes, over the past two years, has been worth 4.0 and 3.5 defensive points per 100 possessions. Samuel Dalembert, over the last two years, has been worth 3.4 and 1.6 defensive points per 100 possessions. There may be some noise here, but this suggests that the totality of what Hayes does saves about 3.75 points per 100 possessions, while the totality of what Dalembert does saves about 2.5 points per 100 possessions. And we don't have to argue about the relative merits of totally subjective things like intimidation in the paint and anchoring a team defense when we look at these numbers, because the numbers take that all into account when they look at the whole big-picture result.

A lot of people around here seem to be fixated on the fact that Hayes isn't tall and doesn't block a lot of shots and extrapolate that into the idea that he can't be a good defender. But the numbers show that he is actually quite a very good defender and that this value as a defender shows up as an overall team improvement. This is not a dismissal of Dalembert, because he is a good defender as well, but available evidence suggests that over the past two years, Hayes has been a bit better.

As an aside, when looking at the overall on-court/off-court +/- numbers (offense and defense, arguably the most important number), Hayes has been a net +5.35 points over the last two years. Dalembert has been -1.45.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Essentially what it comes down to here is how much a player helps the overall team defense. It doesn't particularly matter how you keep the other team from scoring as long as you keep the other team from scoring. Man-to-man stops do count on the scoreboard, nor do blocks, nor does help defense, nor does number of times you intimidated somebody coming into the lane. That's all irrelevant, and points are all that matters.

Well, the best way to look at a player's impact on a team that takes into account everything they do, whether it's in the box score or not, is an on-court/off-court +/- measure. I do dislike +/- for a single game, but over the course of a season or two there's enough data to start to wash the randomness out and get a true picture of what's going on.

Chuck Hayes, over the past two years, has been worth 4.0 and 3.5 defensive points per 100 possessions. Samuel Dalembert, over the last two years, has been worth 3.4 and 1.6 defensive points per 100 possessions. There may be some noise here, but this suggests that the totality of what Hayes does saves about 3.75 points per 100 possessions, while the totality of what Dalembert does saves about 2.5 points per 100 possessions. And we don't have to argue about the relative merits of totally subjective things like intimidation in the paint and anchoring a team defense when we look at these numbers, because the numbers take that all into account when they look at the whole big-picture result.

A lot of people around here seem to be fixated on the fact that Hayes isn't tall and doesn't block a lot of shots and extrapolate that into the idea that he can't be a good defender. But the numbers show that he is actually quite a very good defender and that this value as a defender shows up as an overall team improvement. This is not a dismissal of Dalembert, because he is a good defender as well, but available evidence suggests that over the past two years, Hayes has been a bit better.

As an aside, when looking at the overall on-court/off-court +/- numbers (offense and defense, arguably the most important number), Hayes has been a net +5.35 points over the last two years. Dalembert has been -1.45.

Nice post. Good to see that the actual numbers support what some of us already thought.

 

[Kingster]

Since money (at least not an amount like 2$ million) wasn't really an object for them, I can conclude that they probably simply preferred Chuck. I don't know why that's so unfathomable to people. Even going back to last season the Kings really never seemed all that jazzed over Dalembert.

Agreed. Dalembert wasn't just down on the Kings' list; he was down on other teams' lists across the NBA. That's why he wasn't signed until the end and at for a paltry amount in comparison to others.

 

[Bricklayer]

Essentially what it comes down to here is how much a player helps the overall team defense. It doesn't particularly matter how you keep the other team from scoring as long as you keep the other team from scoring. Man-to-man stops do count on the scoreboard, nor do blocks, nor does help defense, nor does number of times you intimidated somebody coming into the lane. That's all irrelevant, and points are all that matters.

Well, the best way to look at a player's impact on a team that takes into account everything they do, whether it's in the box score or not, is an on-court/off-court +/- measure. I do dislike +/- for a single game, but over the course of a season or two there's enough data to start to wash the randomness out and get a true picture of what's going on.

Chuck Hayes, over the past two years, has been worth 4.0 and 3.5 defensive points per 100 possessions. Samuel Dalembert, over the last two years, has been worth 3.4 and 1.6 defensive points per 100 possessions. There may be some noise here, but this suggests that the totality of what Hayes does saves about 3.75 points per 100 possessions, while the totality of what Dalembert does saves about 2.5 points per 100 possessions. And we don't have to argue about the relative merits of totally subjective things like intimidation in the paint and anchoring a team defense when we look at these numbers, because the numbers take that all into account when they look at the whole big-picture result.

A lot of people around here seem to be fixated on the fact that Hayes isn't tall and doesn't block a lot of shots and extrapolate that into the idea that he can't be a good defender. But the numbers show that he is actually quite a very good defender and that this value as a defender shows up as an overall team improvement. This is not a dismissal of Dalembert, because he is a good defender as well, but available evidence suggests that over the past two years, Hayes has been a bit better.

As an aside, when looking at the overall on-court/off-court +/- numbers (offense and defense, arguably the most important number), Hayes has been a net +5.35 points over the last two years. Dalembert has been -1.45.

+/- has merit in places, but the further removed the two players are from each other, the less useful it becomes because +/- is mostly about your teammates. If I put together a team with Hakeem Olajuwon as my starting center, and David Robinson as my backup center, and never played them together, Robinson might actually end up with a negative +/-. He was one of the greatest defenders of all time, but if you're not as good as your replacement then it doesn't matter how good you are personally.

Now that works the other way too. No matter how pathetic a defender you are personally, if your backup is even more pathetic, you will end up with a positive +/-. Now Chuck Hayes is not pathetic. But all of the above leads to this observation: Chuck Hayes started at center for the Rockets last year. Do you know who his backup was? The player against whom his defensive impact was compared? Brad Miller. 35 yr old Brad Miller even. The year before the main competition was David Anderson. I could have a positive defensive +/- if my backup was David Anderson.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I'm not sure Dalembert was on board physically or mentally to be an effective "Sacramento King" this year, so I think the fact we didn't get him might not matter.

I think Vlade's size was under-rated back in the good ole' days. He took up space and was no defensive specialist but definitely did the job.

Unfortunately I've never seen Cousins as anything but heavy legged and ground-bound so the inside is gonna be iffy. Happy that Hayes seems to be a good egg and tough player. Ultimately, the Kings will be more watchable (and likeable because of it).

Still hoping for AK47

I don't think he was either and that's a big mark against him in my book. One thing I really like about this team on a personal level is that guys like Tyreke, Cousins, JT, Greene, Jimmer, and now Hayes actually seem to like Sacramento. You don’t get the sense that they have their eyes on greener pastures or are disgruntled about playing here. You don’t want to throw a wrench into things for a positive young team like this by bringing in a sourpuss who doesn’t want to be here and only cares about his contract.

Having said that, even if Dalembert was a great, likable, posative guy I might still prefer Hayes just because I think he’s a better fit to play next to Cousins and I believe time will bear that out.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

+/- has merit in places, but the further removed the two players are from each other, the less useful it becomes because +/- is mostly about your teammates. If I put together a team with Hakeem Olajuwon as my starting center, and David Robinson as my backup center, and never played them together, Robinson might actually end up with a negative +/-. He was one of the greatest defenders of all time, but if you're not as good as your replacement then it doesn't matter how good you are personally.

Now that works the other way too. No matter how pathetic a defender you are personally, if your backup is even more pathetic, you will end up with a positive +/-. Now Chuck Hayes is not pathetic. But all of the above leads to this observation: Chuck Hayes started at center for the Rockets last year. Do you know who his backup was? The player against whom his defensive impact was compared? Brad Miller. 35 yr old Brad Miller even. The year before the main competition was David Anderson. I could have a positive defensive +/- if my backup was David Anderson.

Yes, but I'm not really sure that Dalembert's defensive replacements have been so hot, either. Last year he played in a frontcourt with noted defensive stalwarts Carl Landry and a rookie DeMarcus Cousins, with only JT having much in the way of D to skew the numbers. In his last year in Philly, Dalembert had a hobbled Brand, Marreese Speights, and Jason Smith behind him. The total defensive replacement quality doesn't seem that drastically different.

 

[IfAt1st]

Screw the relative stats - I'm just looking forward to seeing with my own eyes how the Kings do with Chuck instead of Dally this season.

We'll soon be able to SEE the on-court effect, instead of relying on stats from different teams and rosters.

 

[Kingster]

Screw the relative stats - I'm just looking forward to seeing with my own eyes how the Kings do with Chuck instead of Dally this season.

We'll soon be able to SEE the on-court effect, instead of relying on stats from different teams and rosters.

Bingo! Me too!

 

[SacTownKid]

For anyone that wants to talk defensive impact and stats, check this first:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj8qID3T-XU

 

[SacTownKid]

Shotblocking is very important, but as always, 1 skill doesn't justify the value of a player, it still depends on how steep the price is.

I don't know why this team didn't go after Turiaf. He can even pass too! He's more the shotblocker people are demanding. Not a rebounder but the weakside help shotblockers usually aren't because they take themselves out of position to get those blocks. Dalembert is a different type of shotblocker and Westphal hit it on the head when talking about the difference between Hassan and Daly. Daly gets a ton of boards because he typically stays in a relative area near the basket, and while it makes him a great rebounder and a good combination of the two, he's not a great weakside help shotblocker.

 

[Bricklayer]

Shotblocking is very important, but as always, 1 skill doesn't justify the value of a player, it still depends on how steep the price is.

I don't know why this team didn't go after Turiaf. He can even pass too! He's more the shotblocker people are demanding. Not a rebounder but the weakside help shotblockers usually aren't because they take themselves out of position to get those blocks. Dalembert is a different type of shotblocker and Westphal hit it on the head when talking about the difference between Hassan and Daly. Daly gets a ton of boards because he typically stays in a relative area near the basket, and while it makes him a great rebounder and a good combination of the two, he's not a great weakside help shotblocker.

Sigh. That really does once again miss the true value of a shotblocker. Being a shotblocker isn't about spectacular swooping blocks etc., its not even purely about the numbers. There are times in fact when the numbers can be deceptive. The truly great shotblockers and the guys who anchor defenses are NOT flying weakside weanies, they are the walls you run into in the lane. The Eatons, Dikembes, Duncans etc. They live in the lane, and they take it entirely away from you. They make you into jumpshooters. And they also rebound to finish the play. That's part of it too. A human wall in front of the hoop.

Size BTW is important. Daly is actually unersixed for the role at only 6'11". He's got very long arms which makes him as good a shotblocker as anybody, but the air of physical intimidation is not as high with him as it is with a 7'1" Bynum or Chandler, or the 7'2" Deke etc. Nonetheless, he is part of that tradition. And THAT is the tradition people talk about twehn they say we need a shotblocker. A true weakside swooper isn't worth much more than his block numbers. If you are surprise blocking peole, then its jsut that, a surprise. And your 2 blocks a game are just basically forcing 2 missed shots. But the big lane blockers are worht many times their actual block numbers. Dwight only blocks about 2 to 2.5 a game, but his mere presence back there stops another 5 guys fro dirivng who normally would, he alters 3 more shots, and half a dozen guys in the post either turn it over loking over their shoulder for him or decide to go with a lower percentage move over the wrong shoulder to avoud his help defense.

 

[SacTownKid]

Sigh. That really doe once again miss the true value of a shotblocker. Being a shotblocker isn't about spectacular swooping blocks etc., its not even purely about the numbers. There are times in fact when the numbers can be deceptive. The truly great shotblockers the guy show anchro defenses are NOT flying weakside weanies, they are the walls you run into in the lane. The Eatons, Dikembes, Duncans etc. They live in the lane, and they take it entirely away from you. They make you into jumpshooters. And they also rebound to finish the play. That's part of it too. A human wall in front of the hoop.

Size BTW is important. Daly is actually unersixed for the role at only 6'11". He;s got very long arms which makes him as good a shotblocker as anybody, but the air of physical intimidation is not as high with him as it is with a 7'1" Bynum or Chandler, or the 7'2" Deke etc. Nonetheless, he is part of that tradition. Adn THAT is the tradition peoolle talk about twehn they sy we need a shotblocker. A true weakside swooper isn't worth much more than his block numbers. If you are surprise blocking peole, then its jsut that, a surprise. Adn your 2 blocks a game are just basically forcing 2 missed shots. but the big lane blockers are worht many times their actual block numbers. Dwight only blocks about 2 to 2.5 a game, but his mere presence back there stops another 5 guys fro dirivng who normally would, he alters 3 more shots, and half a dozen guys in the post either turn it over loking over their shoulder for him or decide to go with a lower percentage move over the wrong shoulder to avoud his help defense.

Being able to help weakside is important to being the kind of "lane blocker" your talking about. Help defense in shotblocking is just as much about effecting opposing teams as anything, and it doesn't have to be a big "swooping" blocker, being able to do that is very nice however.

The problem I see here is the constant comparisons of DALEMBERT to the Eatons, Mutombo's, and Duncans. He's NOT anyone of those guys, not even as a shotblocker. I say hell yeah to a Mark Eaton, that dude was a mountain and he didn't cost his team offensively. Set great screens and could pass out of the post when he needed to. Dalembert isn't this big lane blocker either, the stats from last year tell you that, if you are OK with the anchor of a bottom 2 defensive team in the paint, by all means, go for it, just don't be disappointed when your "Mutombo" turns out to be a Sam Dalembert.

He most certainly would have been a nice return and a dream scenario IMO would have been Hayes AND Dalembert, but the aspects of the game in which Dalembert costs his team can't be denied. Just about every player that Daly has been compared to has been a player that can at least do the things offensively that Daly can't. Daly is still raw and will be eternally raw is many aspects of the game.

You're still separating the actual player in Sam Dalembert with a need he fulfills. You can't underrate fundamentals in regards to shotblocking and the difference between Daly and 99% of the comparisons I've seen can be surmised in a single word: FUNDAMENTALS.

Also this idea that Daly was a perfect compliment to Cousins is off. Cousins would continue to have to guard the smaller quicker guys on the pick and roll. I've rewatched many of the games from last season and it's one of the reasons I was OK with moving in a different direction from Sam. Offensively he got in the way, defensively it left Cousins having to repeatedly guard guys like Blake Griffin, Josh Smith, and other smaller quicker offensive pick and roll players. Teams ate the Kings defense alive with the pick and roll. Now, that's not to say he couldn't have been a critical part to a great defensive team, but I still maintain the idea that this team is going to have to get better as a TEAM to even sniff the upper half of the charts defensively. Their rotations, guarding the pick and roll, etc. all aspects of team defense is where this team failed miserably. In time they are going to have to find that "lane blocker" you speak of, I still have faith that Cousins can seriously improve in this area. I liked what I saw in his first preseason game.