About That Fourth Quarter

by Ziller on Mar 5, 2008 12:25 PM PST in Commentary Comment 11 comments

This morning, I asked David Thorpe (ESPN analyst and Kevin Martin's trainer for the past six years) for his thoughts on what he saw in the fourth quarter last night. Here is his response:

The Kings did a fine job for three quarters last night in mixing in lots of offensive looks. Post ups and iso's for Artest, a spread floor for Beno drives, and lots of 2-man action with Miller and Martin. Double screens are not needed to spring Martin free - only touches for Miller in the high post. Martin is expert at using backdoor cuts or handoffs to create shots for himself or teammates.

But in the 4th quarter, Miller was not involved. Which means Martin wasn't either. One reason why Kobe could explode in the 4th was that he got to rest on defense while almost every play featured a stationary Martin watching the ball being force fed to Artest. Kobe had 21 shots in the first 3 quarters-then he really got going. Martin had 16 shots in 3 quarters, with just one in the 4th. Only 2 touches overall. I wonder if the Kings would have scored just 18 fourth quarter points if Martin was just as central to their attack as Kobe was to the Lakers. And I also wonder if Kobe would have been so effective as a scorer in the 4th if he had to chase Martin around screens and hand-offs and backdoor cuts the entire quarter. We don't know if Martin can carry this team over the Lakers in crunch time. I'd like to find out. I'm sure Miller would love lots of 4th quarter touches.

Kobe was on Martin for a reason - Phil Jackson wanted the Kings to go to Artest. Had Artest started making shots, I'd guess Kobe would have switched onto him. The Kings did exactly what the Lakers' hoped they would do.

I remember one Miller possession -- he got the ball a bit late in the possession, and had to take a truly awful, off-balance shot. But most other possessions consisted of Udrih dribbling to the right side, slip it in to Artest posting up at 15-17 feet, and rotating out. It resulted in few good things.

It's interesting (to me, anways) that Thorpe thinks just giving Miller the ball would be more effective than running set 'Reggie Miller' type plays for Martin. It makes some sense -- Brad can stroke and provides a tremendous safety valve.

It also makes me wonder a little why, if Theus felt he needed to keep two bigs out there for rebounding purposes, he didn't look at a little Miller-Hawes action. Yes, Hawes is truly atrocious on defense right now. But he's a better rebounder than Moore, has better touch in the high post, and Odom wasn't doing anything on offense anyway since it was 100% K.O.B.E. It might not have mattered -- the Kings went to the same set every damn time down, and it resulted in myriad Artest shots -- but I'm not sure it would have hurt. Hawes is a good, good, GOOD passer, and Moore touched the ball on a few fatal possessions.

But yeah, Theus needs to a) figure out how good a weapon Martin is, and b) find a way to use him in crucial moments. He's a much better basketball player than on-court cheerleader, and we all know this.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

My question is

If an outside analyst can see that so clearly, why can't Theus? Is he really that bad of a coach or is the team just not listening to him? It's not like this is the first time we have seen this. When we pass the ball, we win. When we stop, we lose.

by SavageBeast on Mar 5, 2008 1:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Re: My question is

To me, this is lack of preparation more than in-game coaching or motivation. The staff should have been prepared: i.e. know in advance that if/when Kobe is doing a job on Martin, these are the sets we need to go to. Things turn around way to quickly in a game to expect the coaches to come up with some new strategy on the fly and hope the players execute. All this should be prepped and practiced in advance (unless maybe you're on a Don Nelson team haha). Also, look at their end-game defensive strategy on Kobe last night. What it looked like to me is that they didn't prep or practice well enough for him.

by henryclemente on Mar 5, 2008 2:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

not to be a jerk...

but does any team honestly "prep or practice well enough" for kobe bryant? everyone knows that he's pretty much the best end of the game player in the nba. imo, he's been that for a while. he's a closer. and there aren't many players who handle the tension of a close game in the 4th Q with 5 minutes or less. ..artest thinks he's a closer, but he's just a really good player who needs to keep his teammates involved. instead, his true colors keep coming out in the 4th Q when the game reaches crunch time. so we live and die with his off balance running jumpers. and for whatever reason, he usually plays the most minutes. probably theus just trying to keep him quiet.

by kingsfaninjapan on Mar 5, 2008 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

just because

Just because he's the best player in the league, doesn't mean you need to roll over and die, which is essentially what the Kings did. Their strategy was simply to put Artest on him. And if he got past Artest? Well ... no backup strategy whatsoever (unless you count fouling as a defensive strategy). Where where the double teams? Did they even try to get it out of his hands? Make someone other than Kobe beat them in the 4th? I didn't see it...

by henryclemente on Mar 5, 2008 3:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Artest

It starts and ends there. If Artest is playing team ball, the Kings are a team that can challenge for the playoffs. If Ron has to try and be Kobe or Lebron then the Kings are going to live and die by how he plays.

He can shoot, and he looks great in a suit. Hey, everybody - It's REGGIE TIME!

by dalt99 on Mar 5, 2008 2:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

oops

i guess i should have read the rest of the posts before responding to someone! i pretty was trying to get your point across. but yeah, i totally agree with you, obviously.

by kingsfaninjapan on Mar 5, 2008 3:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm impressed

I'm glad I'm not an analyst. My respose would have been "it was the 4th qtr and it was the kings."

Muff rules. http://vegaskings.blogspot.com

by Muff209 on Mar 5, 2008 1:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Ummmm...

If David Thorpe has been on K-Mart's payroll for the past six years, that doesn't exactly make him an "outside analyst" to the situation, does it? Clearly, K-Mart's overall softness and reluctance to take big shots (not to mention how easily he can be shut down by one concerted defensive effort) are entirely the fault of Ron Artest. There's really no other logical explanation.

Visit sunny and beautiful Movie City USA.

by DB on Mar 5, 2008 3:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

You have to have the ball....

in order to hit the big shot. The fourth quarter of last nights game was miserable to watch. Salmons had done a great job defending Kobe and he was good offensively, Martin had also done an admirable job defending Kobe through the first three quarters. Whether by design or out of necessity, Ron Artest shot and missed way too many shots down the stretch. Is there any question that the Lakers decided to let Ron Artest either beat them or lose the game? Kobe chased Martin all over the court, Beno was funneled to the right so he would have to pass down to Artest. Certainly the Lakers differ on your opinion of Kevin Martin's "overall softness" as do I. If they didn't Kobe Bryant, a seven time all-defensive selection would have been guarding someone else.

StR- Where Pookey is long, Otis is short and Section brings down the house.

by jjham15 on Mar 5, 2008 4:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs