Losing the Battle of the Bigs, we just Lose
There seems to be a consistent theme in a lot of the recent games. We seem to lose the battle of the bigs all too often and the opposing team’s bigs, who are often duds, just look like studs and all-stars look like rock stars.
Our bigs seems to lose the battle for low post defensively again and again, get pushed around, and scored on repeatedly. Just how bad has it been? I mean I keep seeing comments about how many points the other team’s bigs score on ours. So, I decided to look at the box scores for the last 15 games… and it was kind of depressing, but instructive.
We have lost the battle of the bigs in 14 of the last 15 games. Meaning our bigs have scored less than the other team’s. Is this related to our winning games? It seems like it might be with us only winning two of the last 15 games. Our guys have only outscored one team, the GSW, and guess what, we won that game. The other win was against Denver and I noticed that our bigs lost that battle, but it was only a one digit loss and Tyreke Evans stepped up to score 27 and Omri Casspi scored 16 to win it for us.
So, given this I started looking at the other games. I noticed that our differential in the battle of the bigs was pretty related to our final score. If we lost the battle of the bigs by double digits we usually ended up losing the game by double digits. This was true for almost 2/3rd of all the games (9) and the remaining games (6) had some notable exceptions.
In these six games we closed the gap in the differential to within a single digit four (4) of the six (6) games. The reason we did that was because in two games Martin scored over 30 and the other two had Evans scoring over 30. We still lost these games, but it was by a single digit and not the double digit loss. The last exceptions were against Washington and Phoenix. We lost the battle of the bigs by a single digit (-6 and -5), but lost the game by a double digit (-10 and -12) and in both these games we had shooters really slump. The game against Phoenix really is an outlier with Greene’s breakout game (31 points) at PF.
So, what the hell does this all mean? I mean it is pretty commonly understood by most on StR that we have defensive problems down low, but we have some offensive issues as well and need to improve both. We need to have our bigs winning the battle by limiting the other bigs’ scoring and then turn around to score more than they do. We are not doing that, but then this isn’t really news. It really is so accepted that many are probably giving our bigs a pass and it seems like most people are focusing on our back court issues with scoring. Seems kind of off though when considering that we are losing in direct relation to how badly our bigs are losing unless one of our back court players steps up for a 30+ game. We typically still lose, but it is usually closer. If our bench goes off or we have a couple players really do well then we might get the win, but that isn't happening much lately.
What do I take away from this analysis? Well, we have a problem with our bigs. Our guards and SFs have stepped up and made up the difference pretty frequently, but that isn’t enough for us to win consistently. We need to fix this problem if we want to win.
Just for perspective let's look at this another way. We generally lose the battle of the bigs, but win the battle of the shooters. Our guards and SFs tend to outshoot the other team by a good margin and they definitely give us an edge right now. In looking over the games what I found was that even though we lost the battle of the bigs our margin of loss is still smaller because of our shooters. We have had some close games despite losing the battle of bigs.
In a nutshell, I realized that if the battle of the bigs was a wash we would have won a lot more games. Holy crap went my thinking when I realized that if the battle of the bigs was a dead wash, the bigs from both teams scored the same, we could have won 8 to 9 more games out of the last 15. Eight to nine more possible wins?! Now that may be arguable as some of these would have been close games, but many would not have been even close when you compare the battle of bigs (BB) - points and game score (GS) - points. I count a lot more wins.
Games we should have won: Our two games against CHA (BB -39, GS -7)(BB -24, GS -2), our game against SAS (BB -12, GS -2), Utah (BB -30, GS -7), TOR (BB -21, GS-11).
Close games: ATL (BB -11, GS -11), ORL (BB -22, GS -21), ORL (BB -18, GS -16), DEN (BB -4, GS -3)
The bottom line is that we need to win the battle of the bigs to win games. Our losses can really be attributed to the truly awful performance of our low post players. If we don’t do this, fix this problem, then we will only be able to win in games where we have shooters that overachieve and even then that isn’t likely to be enough to win unless it is at least two of these players scoring 50% higher, or more, than their season average. That isn’t going to happen often enough for us to get many Ws.
Oh wait, this can't be true... Our problems can't be our low post players at all. All of our problems have to be due to Kevin Martin, right?
(This is a FanPost from a member of the Sactown Royalty community. The views expressed come from the member, and not Sactown Royalty staff.)
3 recs |
45 comments
Comments
If your point that JT & Spence have to become consistently good together for this team to improve, then I wholeheartedly agree MBS.
Well done.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Feb 8, 2010 9:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Thanks!
Pretty much that we can’t win without consistent low post defense and offense. We are losing games and I think more people should start looking at just how badly our bigs are getting beaten.
by MustangMBS on Feb 8, 2010 9:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Good post by the way Mustang
I rant about this all the time and should have thought of doing this.
rec’d
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
Lend the eye a terrible aspect
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
by lietothegirls on Feb 8, 2010 10:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks!
It has been bugging me to no end as well. I mean the other bigs have been good, but to have guys scoring double their season average is just too much.
Just a few examples:
Dwight Howard: Season average ppg is 17.8, Scored 30 against the Kings
Gerald Wallace: Season average ppg is 19, Scored 38 against the Kings
Kenyon Martin: Season average ppg is 12, Scored 24 against the Kings
by MustangMBS on Feb 8, 2010 11:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone (should) know I agree with this
We give up easy baskets to bigs and score very few of our own. Even a lot of the paint baskets by bigs we do score seem labored and uncertain. As Mustang says, shooters can’t pull games out night after night when we have no real threat to just throw it into down low. Its the threat thats as important as the number of buckets down there and right now – we scare no one.
We’re missing a Big piece of the puzzle.
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
Lend the eye a terrible aspect
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
by lietothegirls on Feb 8, 2010 10:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Do you have a list of college bigs yet lttg?
I don’t know how much you’ve been paying attention but there’s many to pick from so I was curious what your ‘rankings’ are looking like.
"Children want what they want when they want it." ... Andy Sims
by edm7 on Feb 8, 2010 10:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
nbrans
Is doing some good research, he had a good post up a week or so ago and seems to be really watching the college guys closely. I did post a fanshot earlier today but the real college games are just kicking in now that we’re well into conf. play. Its early, but it seems to me that if we don’t get the top two there’s a nice chance to trade down and one of the late lottery guys, a few of whom are real nasty defenders, like Vanardo etc
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
Lend the eye a terrible aspect
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
by lietothegirls on Feb 8, 2010 10:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought this was true
And now I know. Our guards aren’t the problem, it’s our bigs. I am starting to think we move either JT or Hawes along with K9 for something better. I, unlike others, would love Al-Jeff.
Wait....Why is everybody clapping? Everyone around me is clapping.... I guess I should be clapping too... GO LAKERS!!! I hate living in So Cal
by 27freethrows on Feb 8, 2010 10:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Weprobably have the 2nd or 3rd worst PF & C in the whole league
Nowhere to go but up!
by mayfieldcol on Feb 8, 2010 10:56 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
Father of the "Natt this!" movement, Grandmaster of the "Never let AnotherStupidSN forget what a Sham-Wow is" Order, and Originator of the "Brock Ness Monster".
by Aykis16 on Feb 9, 2010 8:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Are Spencer and JT as good as Amare, Duncan, Horford, Okafor....
of course not. And, while I applaud you for taking the time and effort to prove that our bigs don’t score as many points as most others do, that fact never was in doubt. What is in doubt is the fact that the Bigs are solely to blame for the discrepancy.
Steve Nash had 10 assists in the PHO game and 6 of them were to bigs at the rim, Grant Hill had 2 more assist at the rim, and Dragic had another. The KIngs had a total of 2 from Sergio. In the SAS game Manu got to the rim 5 times and handed out an additional 5 assists at the rim, George Hill had 3 assists at the rim, Bogans had 2 and Tim Duncan had 2. The Kings had a total of 6 and only 2 of those by guards.
So in 2 games the opponent had 21 assisted baskets at the rim, and the Kings had 8. Now, maybe you think that our 2 bigs with less than 4 yrs experience between them should be able to defend All-Stars, and stop other All-stars from penetrating into the paint, and that they should also be able to intercept passes for easy buckets, but that’s you. I think our team defense stinks, and if you want to blame the 2 people closet to the basket for a team wide problem, then you won’t be happy no matter who we have back there.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
by HighTops on Feb 8, 2010 10:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
What is your point here?
I am also saying they are allowing the other team’s bigs to score too easy. Not just that they aren’t scoring enough, which they aren’t.
We do have a deficiency in the low post defense department as you were so ready to point out yourself. Your comment that you would take any good defensive low post player that could give 20 minutes of decent effort was pretty much in agreement with what I am posting here.
You are talking assists and by that are you saying this should excuse our guys for the lack of defense? I mean I don’t care how they get the ball in the post, if they can’t block out their man, do their work early, and keep them from making easy buckets then that is just one hell of a problem. I am saying that is our problem.
I mean it is getting better. I think Spence did OK on Duncan by holding him to 20 points, but when he was off the court so was Spence and there was pretty much no D at all. I don’t expect these kids to be able to bottle up and shut down players and I don’t know that I am saying it is all their fault, but I do expect NBA level defense and it just is not there all too often.
by MustangMBS on Feb 8, 2010 11:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i think he is referring to the fact
that opposing guards are penetrating and JT and Hawes are left with having to decide whether to jump out on the guards or stay back and defend their guy. Often this leads to them helping and the guard getting an easy assist. Basically he’s arguing it’s likely our guard defense that is in fact the problem.
Sort of a chicken before the egg debate.
At least i think.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Feb 8, 2010 11:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He is but
I myself have never been convinced that JT is a quality starter on a good team, not with Hawes at the Center in any case. Hawes can still be an All- Star (or close to it) center but he needs to play with a physical PF to pull it off.
I actually think JT could still be a physical guy, but he needs to get a lot stronger, especially in the lower body. He needs to be able to power to rim when he has a chance and to hold his man off on the other end.
Right now Hawes looks much better at using the strength he does have to work at both ends. Props to Hawes. He clearly read my comments (clears throat) a few eeks ago that he just needed to simplify his game both on offense and defense. He’s been a lot less fancy, fewer ineffective moves that were just signaling defenders and letting them prepare.
On defense I still thinks he tries, without success, to block too many shots and leaves space for offensive players to operate rather than Taking up space and altering shots – but though he gets overpowered sometimes (and we’ll have to see if he can get stronger) his fundamental post defense against bigs is pretty solid a lot of the time.
As we all know, JT has been a real mess lately. Almost nothing is fundamentally good on defense (and never has been) and only about half his offensive game seems to be working at any time. He’s shown signs on offense at times but hasn’t put a simple variety of things together in one game for over a month.
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
Lend the eye a terrible aspect
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
by lietothegirls on Feb 9, 2010 12:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i don't want to kiss your ass on this one
But i’ve been largely feeling the same way. I know Hawes will never be a very good rebounder, might seem like a prick, and look like a big white stiff, but the guy seems to be able to defend other bigs pretty darn well. I know I sometimes want to throw the remote at the TV when I see the likes of Raymond Felton knifing down the lane but (a) there are only so many Alonzo Mornings in the world and (b) I dunno if that is necessarily always the big’s fault. Just because they are tall as hell and around the hoop doesn’t necessarily mean they are quick enough to react and get a good angle on the ball. I dunno, I just don’t see many guys over power Hawes when he plays one on one on them, seems like his problems are more with when he has to play help defense.
As for JT … yikes. I don’t want to pile on the guy but … well at least he can rebound. I always had an infatuation with Nene. Might have been based on just the fact he “looked” like a stud, but shit he did! I was always so darn frustrated though watching him foul all the time. And then finally he got it and now he can play over 30+ minutes and contribute. Now, i want to say with JT “If only he can stop fouling he’s gonna be a stud!” but honestly, i mean … he can rebound alright and shoot a jump shot a little i suppose but he’s pretty borderline. Personally, I think the David West comparisons people gave him were a little off, sorry but I have a hard time seeing it.
And I know he had that stretch at the beginning of the year. Maybe he can get his scoring up a bit up to where it was if he just (i) stop the moving screens and (ii) get to the free throw line a bit more. Seemed like he was getting to the line alot early on in the season. As for his defense, i have no clue what positives to look for.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Feb 9, 2010 12:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully like Hawes lately
A switch will go on for him, and he’ll not only see the things that aren’t working but he’ll show the abilty to actually act on those problems.
But man is he a mess at the moment, and the moment has been over a month. He needs to keep coming off the bench for a while like Hawes did and maybe that will give him the breathing space to figure some things out.
I havn’t given up on him yet, but he’s a few years older than Hawes or Donte’.
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
Lend the eye a terrible aspect
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
by lietothegirls on Feb 9, 2010 12:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
In regards to our bigs
One of the odd little sidenote things I am fascinated with is the JT Love/Hawes Frustration dynamic that had been going on in Sacramento. Recently with JT’s play i guess it has changed a bit, although it still seems like Hawes gets alot of the rough treatment in general. If the current trend keeps up I will be reallly curious who the general fans keep in higher regard.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Feb 9, 2010 12:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, lttg & Wally, if found no fault in anything you said above.
I too feel that Hawes has not reached his potential, which is much higher, and should be higher than JT’s. I also feel that Spencer gets too much of the blame for the weak interior defense, when he’s the one that has to make up for the deficiencies of the other bigs and pg’s.. But, saying that, both Spencer and JT are very young and inexperienced and haven’t had the benefit of working and developing on a good team. I’ve often thought that both would have progressed further had they been drafted by a better team and learned under better coaching.
I will agree with those that put them as being below average at their positions, especially JT and his horrid defense and foul issues. But, to put all the blame on them for the poor defense is rediculous. And, to suggest that the poor offense is their problem, when the team runs absolutely no offensive sets for them and the starting PG doesn’t hardly make any plays to make them better, is even more rediculous.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
by HighTops on Feb 9, 2010 2:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No doubt on some of your points
about not enough offense being run for our bigs.
That doesn’t diminish Mustang’s point though. We lose the battle of the bigs and we lose.
Can you run plays for JT right now? (I guess you have to)
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
Lend the eye a terrible aspect
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
by lietothegirls on Feb 9, 2010 10:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Especially for JT
62% of JT made baskets at the rim are assisted
56% from inside 10ft are assisted
66% from 10-15 ft are assisted
87.5% outside of 15ft are assisted
If he didn’t have assisted baskets he’d be scoring about 4pts per game.
I don’t mean to diminish Mustang’s work or his analysis. But, the conclusion was pretty obvious. We knew in the preseason, that a starting backcourt with 1 center, and a 2yr PF was going to be trouble. And, no one thought that May or Brockman were going to help that much. But as bad as the outlook was, and as bad as the performance has been to date, I still believe that you can’t compare backcourt to backcourt when the teams aren’t equally talented. Put Spencer and JT on a better them and their performances will be better.
So, is it that their bad or is part of it that the team is bad.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
by HighTops on Feb 9, 2010 11:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
it might be helpful to look at a few of Hightop's posts. He has written alot on the subject.
Sometimes you have to read them over a few times, well at least I have to.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Feb 8, 2010 11:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry Wally, I'll try to be clearer. But, if you do have questions, ask. I also go back.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
by HighTops on Feb 9, 2010 2:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
oh god don't worry no your fine
I dunno how the heck else you are supposed to right it. When it comes to sports I (like many others) usually argue based on assumptions. You seem to like to show specific facts and then explain point by point. It’s just hard for me to stay focused when you detail everything that’s all. Keep doing what your doing, I like the fact that I have to read it over more than one time.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Feb 9, 2010 10:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am saying exactly want Wally suggested,
and I’m say to simply look at box scores and not look at how the baskets were scored still leaves your conclusion in doubt. I can look at the final scores of the last 23 games and see that the Westphal lead Kings are 3 & 20. Therefore Westphal can’t teach his young team how to play professional basketball. Which of course isn’t proven by his history in the league.
But, to look only at the final pts scored by the opposing centers and not to look at how they got the baskets, is just as inconclusive. And to ignore that fact that the Kings played some of the best teams in the league and not take into consideration that the difference in the talent between the teams had anything to due with the outcome or our bigs performance is also less than being thorough in your analysis.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
by HighTops on Feb 9, 2010 2:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Inconsistent at best here HT
Exactly what Wally suggested? But this again is a defensive liability of our bigs. For example, Brockman is on his guy. His guy screens the guard. Brockman jumps out and doesn’t rotate back. His guy gets the easy bucket off of the assist at the rim. So, this isn’t Brockman’s fault is your point?
I watched this repeatedly in the past game or two. It is Brockman’s fault because he didn’t let the defending guard get past him. He should have either jumped out farther or taken a step back to let the defending guard go past so that he could rotate back on his guy and defend the rim. I have watched this happen repeatedly and don’t see that guard penetration is as big of an issue as it once was either. Tyreke is a great defender and seems to have a handle on penetration.
The problem is that your stats can’t conclusively say that I am wrong. They can raise questions which you have done, but then again it isn’t so simple to point at them and say “Aha” you are being
rediculous.
Are there other issues, hell yes, but the bigs are part of that team defense and yeah their team defense sucks too. They don’t always defend the screens and pick and rolls very well and don’t get back on their guy. That isn’t the guard’s fault.
You go on to say that
I will agree with those that put them as being below average at their positions, especially JT and his horrid defense and foul issues. But, to put all the blame on them for the poor defense is rediculous.How did I put all the blame on them. I blamed them for the low post defense. Which you even agree that they are below average at for their positions. Don’t misconstrue my own words to shoot them down. That isn’t right.
How is it no fair to blame them for some of the lack of offense? JT’s shooting has gone to hell. He can’t seem to hit a bucket to save his life. Definitely not to win a game. He has slumped horribly and looks awful out there and that isn’t something that we should hold him accountable for in your opinion? Yet, you agree that we should bench him? How is that not agreeing to hold him accountable? You agree to bench him, but then make a bunch of excuses for him and point at other factors. When the truth is that he was Mr. Consistent at a number of places on the floor and is no more.
Your replies to posts that are critical of our bigs often seems to be inconsistent with your own comments. You are critical of our bigs, but then turn around to defend them for the very thing you were critical about if anybody else dares to do be critical. This is inconsistent at best. You come off as trying to deny that we have a problem defensively in the low post and then turn around and agree that we do? Whatever dude.
by MustangMBS on Feb 9, 2010 9:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mustang I don't think Hightop was trying to rip you apart here
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Feb 9, 2010 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As with most of these types of discussions the points get deluted the longer they run
I don’t disagree that our frontcourt has deficiencies. This started because I disagree with the conclussion of your original post.
The bottom line is that we need to win the battle of the bigs to win games. Our losses can really be attributed to the truly awful performance of our low post players
First I disagree that we need to win the battle of the bigs, I guess because I don’t know what exactly your referring to. Do we have to out score them, out rebound them, out block them? We’ve lost 10 games because we outscored the other team from the field but were out scored more at the FT line, so do the bigs need to hit more FT’s for us to win?
But, my big disagreement is your final conclusion that the losses are the result of the awful performance of the low post players. And, here your simple math of comparing pts scored doesn’t prove your point either. Your ignoring the failure of the rest of the team at preventing penetration, and blaming the frontcourt players because they can’t beat their man and the penetrating player at the same time.
CP3 made Chandler a better center. Nash makes Amare a better PF. Ginobli makes Duncan better at what ever position you want to put him in PF or Center. Williams makes Millsap a better PF. Who on the Kings makes JT a better PF?
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
by HighTops on Feb 9, 2010 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So here is the thing
You match up our bigs against other team’s bigs and we lose. However you want to slice or dice it we end up the worse off. The main things is that they score big time, pun intended.
It is pretty basic to look at the other team’s bigs score totals, look at our own, and realize we got problems. Maybe I overstated it by saying it so that it came off as only our low post players as we could also have better and more timely doubling of the other team’s low post players, BUT it really is a problem with the talent we have in the low post or the lack thereof. I don’t see you disagreeing with that.
Sure, there are other factors, but even considering those you cannot refute the plain and simple fact that we are getting killed in the low post. We just are and that is the plain truth. There are players scoring DOUBLE their season average on us that are PFs and Cs. They are killing us and the differential is just horrible.
Deny it all you want, but we have a deficiency in low post talent. We need more talent. Period. Our bigs are not up to competing and that is the plain truth. You can’t blame the lack of talent on our roster on the PG and him not dishing enough assists to our low post players. Even if that is an issue, and I tend to agree, we still have the problem with giving up to many points to the other team’s bigs. And yes, I addressed that point above. You kind of ignored it.
The points get diluted when you completely ignore what somebody’s point is and try to dismiss what they have done, while seeming to agree with them in comments to other people on this fanpost. You tend to make good points, but demeaning an author as ridiculous isn’t a good point to start from unless you haven’t noticed.
by MustangMBS on Feb 9, 2010 12:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
sorry that i am jumping in the middle of this and i promise to jump right back out
i just wanted to point out that you might want to read some of HighTops stuff somewhere else, not here. I think it will make a bit more sense.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Feb 9, 2010 12:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is my last attempt,
First:
BUT it really is a problem with the talent we have in the low post or the lack thereof. I don’t see you disagreeing with that.
Yes, I do agree.Second:
Sure, there are other factors, but even considering those you cannot refute the plain and simple fact that we are getting killed in the low post.
Through 50 games this season the Kings have outscored their opponents in the paint in 29 games. So, other teams have an interior defensive problem too.
Third:
Deny it all you want, but we have a deficiency in low post talent. We need more talent. Period. Our bigs are not up to competing and that is the plain truth
Of course I don’t deny it: We started May, Brockman, Thomas, Greene and Noc at the 4 or 5 spot this season. And, I don’t need your calculations, to verify something that is that obvious.
Finally:
but demeaning an author as ridiculous isn’t a good point to start from unless you haven’t noticed.
I’m sorry you feel personally attacked, which was not my intent. Although looking back, I can see how you might, and my choice of words were probably inappropriate. So, let me rephrase.
Your conclusion that
Our losses can really be attributed to the truly awful performance of our low post players
fails to take into account the overall lack of team defense, and is therefore less than accurate.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
by HighTops on Feb 9, 2010 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah well then, I am glad we agree on so many points then
Though point 2 is somewhat misleading as I think the other teams have a Tyreke Evans problem and that is true even for teams with good interior defense.
And as to the third point. What is obvious to you and me isn’t always obvious to other people. One of my goals here was to get people to start thinking that maybe KMart isn’t THE problem here.
As to the conclusion. You are correct. There is also the team defense to consider.
Overall, I do read a lot of what you write, even though wally may not believe that, and think you make a lot of good points. At the same time, there is always the chance that two people saying different things can both be right. It can be free throw shooting AND low post issues. The game and teams are never or rarely one dimensional when it come to issues like this and similar.
I don’t reply to your stuff that sometimes comes off as one dimensional because there is some truth in what you are saying and I doubt you mean to discount all the other issues. Clearly there are lots of causes for losing, such as FTs, lower shooting FG%s, defense, etc.
When I posted I could see how it may have come across like I was discounting all the other issues, but that wasn’t my intent. By saying that there are defensive problems in the low post and that we would have won more games I did not mean to discount our other issues.
Looking for the gems in what people bring and post can be a challenge, but seeing the shades of grey instead of all or nothing black and white thinking is generally a lot more rewarding and leads to livelier and better discussion.
by MustangMBS on Feb 9, 2010 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think to be a good team you have to have a good guard and a good center
or at least one who can hold his own, doesn’t have to be a superstar. Thats why I hope the Kings sign David Lee with all their cap space
by MJ5 on Feb 8, 2010 11:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
All their cap space?
David Lee?
Because he’s such a good defender?
Um, no.
StR Token Female
by LeaguePassAddict on Feb 9, 2010 8:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I went to Oracle Arena last night with my Warrior buddy and saw alot that made me think of the Kings
It was Mavs/GSW – the Warriors were hot and fiery the Mavs sluggish and mediocre as an exciting 70-61 first half GSW lead concluded.
Dirk sat much of the first half and finished with 2 points. The trio of :Monta Ellis, Stephen Curry and Anthony Murrow had 23,21, 17 points. Driving hoops, 3 pointers, really fun to watch. The Mavs were going through the motions.
Then the second half happened. The Mavs outscored the Dubs 66-47 and won by 10. The game was close for three quarters – then the Mavs got within 4, then tied it and the Warriors began to panic. They had 10 second half turnovers missed shots, took wild attempts, some of the lesser scorers would look to pass instead of shoot.
The Mavs played an adequate game. There was no domination. Jason Terry, Drew Gooden and Josh Howard had season highs but Dirk had 13 and they put up 127 points so, someone had to score. My point is – the pressure of the game destroyed the Warriors, not the outstanding play of the Mavs. Not to downgrade the Mavs, who are a very good team, but this was the Warriors not knowing how to perform more than anything. I thought – wow, I have seen this same scenario going on for the Kings for the last 20+ games. This is what inexperienced teams do. What the Thunder did for the first part of last year.
Learning from losing is a tough game but these Kings are still in school. I hope graduation comes soon.
by betweentheeyes on Feb 9, 2010 11:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
The Thunder didn't perform too well to end the year either.
They only won 23 games.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Feb 9, 2010 2:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yes, but the Thunder started the season last year 3- ? 29 ?
and then had an overall respectable second half of the season. The learned something, can’t give all the credit to Scotty Brooks
by betweentheeyes on Feb 9, 2010 3:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Knicks game side note:
We won the bigs battle against the Knicks. Lee and Jeffries combined to make 34 points while JT and Donte’ combined to make 36 points and we won the game.
I still hold and maintain that when we win the battle of the bigs, we will win more games. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the remainder of the season.
by MustangMBS on Feb 9, 2010 10:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Incorrect
First of all, I just don’t like the use of total points to determine which team wins the “battle of the bigs”. It is too simplistic and not descriptive enough. That being said, you are being disingenuous with your claim. You only selected two players from each team. Our bigs combined for 38 (JT: 24, DG: 12, JB: 2, SH: 0) vs the Knicks 52 (Lee: 21, AH: 17, JJ: 13, Hill: 1). If you are going to count the points from the bigs, you need to count them all.
Last night’s game does not support your argument.
by Skinny Pete on Feb 10, 2010 9:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting but you are incorrect. That is not my analysis.
My analysis was not off all bigs. The other teams starting bigs or the two bigs with the most minutes compared to our same are what tend to kill us in games. Using these bigs account for most of the minutes. For example, Spencer started, but only played 5 minutes or so and counting that is pretty unrealistic.
Interesting perspective to think of totaling all bigs and averaging by the minutes. That might be an interesting discussion, but you lose the battle in this analysis. You can’t skew it by changing my rules on me. I have my reasons for it. Tough I know, but you can’t. That is my analysis. You don’t have to like it and don’t have to agree, but thanks for reading it.
by MustangMBS on Feb 10, 2010 8:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Where did you state your "rules" in your analysis?
You can’t skew it by changing my rules on me. I have my reasons for it. Tough I know, but you can’t.
Aren’t you smug? I suggest the next time you post your analysis, you state your rules ahead of time so your audience knows. It helps to keep everyone honest.
Since you didn’t do that, I think you are now skewing the data to fit your argument. If that’s not the case, then you are being incredibly short-sighted by ignoring the other players contributions. I understand Hawes only played 5 minutes, but by your rationale, you think it is okay to ignore Al Harrington’s 35 minutes played (because it was the third most on his team). That’s a lot of relevant/ valid data to exclude.
You are right about one thing, I don’t have to agree. And based off of your hidden reasons for only comparing the contributions from two front court players from each team, I’m not comfortable with your results. It just seems very flawed to me.
By in large I have enjoyed most of your other contributions. Keep posting.
Oh, The Kings beat the Pistons tonight. Using your (new) rules, the 2 front court players with the most minutes were SH & JT, who combined for 11 points. The 2 Pistons were Big Ben & Jerebko, who totaled 15 points. I’m out.
by Skinny Pete on Feb 10, 2010 8:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought about it
The things is that it would really be difficult. We have some weird line ups with PW playing Noc and others for some minutes at PF. It would be very difficult to track PF and C scoring for the Kings let alone the other teams. Going with the starters or if there is somebody that playes the majority of minutes is easiest and probably fairly accurate overall.
Sorry if I offended you. It kind of came off as you being a pissed off Knicks fan at first and I thought you were trolling.
by MustangMBS on Feb 10, 2010 10:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i don't understand how that is difficult
you can see their position by how they play. you seem to watch enough games to know who plays what and all the wacky lineups in the league. just remember it’s always 96 minutes a night between the two positions whenever you get lost.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Feb 10, 2010 10:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For most teams it wouldn't be a problem.
PW mixes up the line up so much some games that it can be a bit nuts. When is Noc at 4 and for how long when he has Donte’ on the floor at the same time and running a small ball lineup? He has guys in and out so fast and then playing such mixed up matches that getting into that kind of detail would be pretty unmanageable. I do watch and record the games, go back and review plays, but even I have my limits.
In looking at the games and the boxscores it was pretty easy to pick the PF and C that played the most minutes for the Kings and the other teams. The starters for games are listed at the beginning of the game and posted. Some of the subs are hard to keep straight, but typically most teams give their starters the majority of minutes. Harrington might have been an exception, but I seemed to recall that he was in with the starter a fair amount and played SF so I didn’t count him at PF.
It isn’t easy to do this kind of stuff and the more complex you make it the more it becomes obscure and easily challenged, less understood by a lot of people, and just plain cumbersome… Keeping it simpler and taking that hit seemed better. I wasn’t writing a thesis.
by MustangMBS on Feb 10, 2010 11:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty close bigs battle against the Pistons amid weird line ups...
I had to go back and review the recording to figure out who played most at PF for the Kings against the Pistons. Looks like it was Noc for a lot of the minutes and there were some really weird lineups for the Pistons as well. .
Spencer only scored 6 as did Donte’ starting at PF, but Donte’ only played limited minutes at PF. Noc came in at PF although there was some Brockman and May thrown in there for a few. JT came in for about the same amount of minutes and played mostly C, but also played some PF later in the game.. if I remember right.
If I go with the starters there would only be 12 Kings points against the Piston 15 points by Wallace and Jerebko. but Noc played more than Donte’ and scored 13 giving the Kings 18.. It could get really complex as Villanueva came in at C for some minutes to score quite a few points fast, he didn’t play more than Wallace at C though..
Scoring the battle of the bigs using my model of either starters or whoever logs the most minutes I would say that it was a slight Kings win in the battle of the bigs. Kings 18 (Spence and Noc) and Pistons 15 (Wallace and Jerebko), however there were some weird line ups with Prince playing a few minutes at PF for Detroit and such as that.. Given this I would say there it is arguably about dead even.
by MustangMBS on Feb 11, 2010 12:23 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 






















