Of Free Throws & Turnovers
by section214 on Jun 12, 2010 10:18 PM PDT
in Numbers
Email
Print
section214, betweentheeyes & Kayte Christensen discuss the Kings turnover woes while waiting for Aykis16 to return with their beer and nachos.
Jason Thompson was on the radio last week, stating that Paul Westphal has mentioned that if the team had just cut turnovers down by a couple per game and made an additional free throw or two, they would have won several more games. That got me thinking (or at least as close as I ever get to thinking). Could it be that simple (now simple is something that I do know about)?
The Kings ranked (literally) 28th in free throw percentage last year, and they probably would have finished dead last had Kevin Martin not suited up for a run of games. Their 72.6% rate was a bit behind the 76% league average, and a mile away from #1 Dallas (81.6%).
The Kings also rated out as tied for 23rd in the league in turnovers, at 15 per game. The league average was about 14.3, and the leaders were Atlanta at 12.0. The Kings also finished tied for 27th in differential, giving up 1.3 more turnovers than they secured. The average (of course) is zero, with Golden State leading the way, securing an amazing 2.9 more turnovers a game than they yielded.
I went back over last year’s schedule, focusing on the games that the Kings lost by less than 10 points. My formula, like me, was very simple – back the Kings down to 14 turnovers and increase their FT% to 76% in these games (the league averages), and see if any of them flip from losses to wins. I figure every turnover is worth roughly one point (two turnovers cost you two possessions and you would have converted on one of them…very, very, very simplistic).
11/20 @ Dallas, 102-104 The Kings turned the ball over 21 times and shot 10-14 from the free throw line. Give the Kings 7 points for the reduction in turnovers and another point from the line and the pull out the win by a score of 110-104.
12/8 @ New Orleans, 94-96 The Kings shoot 9-19 from the line. 14-19 is 74%, which would have given the Kings the 99-96 victory.
12/23 vs. Cleveland, 104-117 (OT) The game was tied 104 all at the end of regulation (yes, the Kings got skunked in overtime). 15-22 from the line, 17-22 would have given them the win in regulation.
12/26 vs. LA L*kers, 103-112 (OT) 2nd verse, same as the first. Like the Cleveland game, the Kings were hurt by a 13-20 performance from the line. Better free throw shooting would have given them the regulation "w."
1/18 @ Charlotte, 103-105 20 turnovers and 14-21 from the line. 111-105 if the Kings just put up league average numbers here.
2/1 @ Denver, 109-112 (OT) 99 all at the end of regulation in a game where the Kings turned the ball over 19 times. I’m not sure how many of these occurred in OT, but one fewer in regulation could have made the difference.
2/16 vs. Boston, 92-95 19-30 from the line. 23-30 replicates the league average, and delivers a 96-95 win for the good guys.
3/19 vs. Milwaukee, 114-118 (OT) StR, the Peachquel. The hail Mary three by Ilyasova stung like a bitch, and the fact that Jennings was 4-15 from two but 8-13 from three didn’t help matters. But the Kings turned the ball over 18 times that night. Better care of the ball and we all go home happy.
In total, the Kings would have been a 33-49 team had they just been an average ball handling and free throw shooting team. We would be looking at the #11 pick in the draft, but we would also be glowing over nearly doubling our win total from the year before.
The good news is that the Kings could and should get better in these categories. One of the youngest teams in the NBA will be a year older and more experienced. The rookie core should especially benefit, particularly on the road and in tight games (7 of the 8 games listed above were road games and/or overtime games). Hell, just this team knowing each other better should reduce the turnovers, right? Right?
Put this together with overall improvement by certain players (Evans, Thompson, Hawes, Greene, Landry, Casspi and the yet to be drafted #5 pick all have room for great improvement – pick 3 out of 7 and we’re much better), and suddenly we could be back in the mid to upper 30’s in wins…and that’s without landing any free agents. I know that this is all half-glass-full verbosity, and it could just as easily tip back in the other direction if we are hammered by injuries, Westphal loses the young team, etc. But to me, this is encouraging. Very encouraging, indeed.
124 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The funny thing about the possible difference this would have made in our draft stock
is that there’s a good chance Petrie takes Hassan Whiteside either way
#vfettkefordraft
I dont think he takes Whiteside..
Too long of a wait for him to really be an effective player on both ends of the floor. Not seeing much upside offensively, but he is an ungrade defensively. That being said, the Kings do need an offensive big who can bang, ala Favors/Cousins.
No
they need a defensive big. Landry, Thompson, and Hawes can all score quite well but aren’t great defenders. Cousins is a great offensive player but is also a huge upgrade defensively. Favors will be a wait too, but he’ll be an awesome defender
#vfettkefordraft
vfettke is correct
While the Kings could certainly use a big who could create some offense, offense has not be the problem with the Kings bigs.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
Landry's our only productive big.
Thompson and Hawes both posted sub-par offensive ratings (106 for Thompson, 101 for Hawes), and both were below league average on points per shot (1.198 for Thompson, 1.086 for Hawes, compared with league average 1.229).
by napg on Jun 13, 2010 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Kinda tough to call JT and Hawes a failure at this point
This last season was tough for both of them.
JT was playing great at the beginning and end of the season. His stats do not represent his talent. He is better than that. The same is true for Spencer, but for different reasons. He spent the whole year trying to play a game that isn’t his own. Trying to meet unrealistic expectations that he can become a type of player that he is not and never will be.
V is right in that neither JT or Spence are the kind of defensive talent that we need, though JT seems to enjoy banging more, and I would add that if we can add such a talent it would let both of them play more of their type of game.
We did lose the battle of the bigs this last season and it was due to both offense and defense, but I don’t think that Landry was the complete answer. He helped on offense, but not that much on defense.
I didn't major in Common F-cking Sense, but ...
Not calling them failures.
Especially not JT. I mean, Hawes really has to step it up next season, but I’m actually quite pleased with Thompson’s play. However, JT’s a scrapper, hustler and rebounder with a decent-looking stroke – but I don’t ever see him developing into a key offensive weapon in the post.
I mean, say what you want about Hawes and JT overall, but it’s tough to say that either one of them “can score quite well.”
by napg on Jun 13, 2010 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
agreed
Please note the 11 next to my name. All others are frauds.
by wallywagon11 on Jun 13, 2010 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Interesting stuff
and makes a lot of sense to me. I wouldn’t get caught up on the extra Ws too much and just take it at face value and say we would’ve been a better team with less turnovers and better FT shooting.
I’ve always believed that the best way to get better is from within. Yes, FAs and rookies can help, but improvement from the players already in the team can make a big difference. Understanding the system, buying into the coaches’ philosophy, and familiarity with one another are big part of a team’s success. This call omes with experience.
Looking forward to next season already.
"Children want what they want when they want it." ... Andy Sims
Never trust me with your beer money.
Grandmaster of the "Never let AnotherStupidSN forget what a Sham-Wow is" Order and Originator of the "Brock Ness Monster".
Section
I think u forgot the New Year’s day game vs. the L*kers. Up two with two free throws to clinch it, Ime misses two and the rest is history.
BOOK IT!
Nope
They only had 13 turnovers in that game and shot 75% (12-16) line, so that is not what cost them that night. Yes, they would have won if Udoka had hit those FT’s, but my “analysis” is based only on the Kings attaining league average, which they did that night.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
There is no doubt
Missing free throws cost the Kings that game. Sometimes timing and situation is just as important.
BOOK IT!
You've completely missed my point
If a team makes 23 out of 23 free throws, and then they miss 2 that would clinch the game, they would have shot 92% from the line for the game. Did their free throw shooting cost them the game? No. The overall free throw shooting helped keep them in the game.
Yes, if Udoka makes his free throws, the Kings win. If Rodriguez doesn’t lose Kobe, the Kings win. If Kobe doesn’t make the 3, the Kings win. None of this is germane to the conversation at hand, which is which games the Kings could have won had they simply shot free throws and turned the ball over to the league average. For this game, they shot the NBA average from the free throw line…and lost.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Jun 13, 2010 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
I also missed that you excluded all the losses where the Kings were at or above League averages at first. I got it after reading the above. That the games you are focusing on are only those where there was bad FT% and turnovers.
I didn't major in Common F-cking Sense, but ...
the close losses
Hmmm, were there any close wins that we were way above the league averages?
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 Jun 14, 2010 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions
I can tell from the above picture that your are concerned about C.H.O.A.S.
and stepped out of the cone of silence to voice these opinions.If the Kings had been more in Control the scoring opportunities would have increased and yes, more victories would most likely result – when it came to those defeats, they missed them by that much.
Alright, black and white is good for old television shows but a tougher sell as these Kings made many of their faults do to inexperience and even given the chance to excel might have found other ways to fail. On the opposite front, how many victories were the result of improved TOs (under the average) or keener FT shooting?
The Kings are who they are: it almost like the Time Machine theory – if you could turn back time and do it over – would you? Well, you are who you and you did what you did do, so why wouldn’t you do it again? The other philosophy is a variant of actual choas theory, “the butterfly effect” (not the sexual technique, stay with me here) changing one little thing (i.e. FT %) can cause a ripple which can have vast and unknown effects across the board (maybe the increased wins cause an StR 3 and both Pookey and sims sit next to each other and the Kings ban all future StR gatherings).
The prospect that the Kings will be a better team next season is cause for great excitement. That more talent will be on the roster with at least the #5 pick, the #33 pick, with Evans returning from a tough summer of training and the addition of the USA basketball experience, that Donte will have worked long and hard on his shot and conditioning, that JT will be bigger and stronger, that Brockman will have a decent mid range jumper and better FT, that Spencer is still here in Sac working out, Cisco will be healthy, Beno will be healthy, Omri is doing two a days to be in year round condition, the new FA’s and that the same coaching staff will return are great reasons to anticipate a ten win improvement next season.
Who do you think is a good Agent 13?
by betweentheeyes on Jun 12, 2010 11:06 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Agent 13
Because he was usually (and clumsily) disguised, I would go with either Grant Napear, Doratio Kane, or Andrew Bynum.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
and it is spelled C.H.A.O.S.
my darn keyboard can’t spell worth a damn
by betweentheeyes on Jun 13, 2010 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions
I fully enjoy reading both of your work.
You guys are kind of like Madden and Michaels. Section hides his knowledge with a Jerryesque a shucks while BTE reads like a Crichton book. You should both quit your lucrative day jobs and take over for Lamb and Napear. It would be great radio.
Truth is, on talent alone, and nothing else, I’d rank DMC 1st.
PookeyGuru- June 1, 2010.
Where did you hear Omri was oing two -a-days?
I’ve been down with Kidney Stones (Nasty!)
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 Jun 14, 2010 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions
see the FanShot page
courtesy of RikSmits Omri’s Twitter page
by betweentheeyes on Jun 14, 2010 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Thanks
I actually went and looked for it earlier
Good news
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 Jun 14, 2010 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions
sorry about your renal calculi
you must have passed it by now (he said hopefully). IV fluids? lithotripsy?
by betweentheeyes on Jun 14, 2010 7:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Good read,
Lets hope they can make these improvements. Another sub 30 win season would be tough to handle.
When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car.
Interesting info, thanks Section
We’re also very high in fouls committed. I wonder how many more games we would have won if we hadn’t set the other team to the FT line so often?
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
Good point.
But that’s gonna be happening until the handle comes down.
Gotta Love Your Sacramento Kings!!My Song!...
When they loose?not feelin' the love so much(ich mir..oy vey!)
The number of close games against the best teams is very encouraging.
Free throw percentage can be remedied by more work at the gym. However, Coach Westphal would have to work on the team’s offensive execution in order to reduce the turnovers, as most of them result from miscommunication or too much dribbling. The additional one year of experience will toughen up the nerves of our youngsters (particularly during the endgame), so I wouldn’t be surprised if we go 35+ next season.
(By the way, I’m new here, but have been reading StR for the past 2 years.)
TWSS?
and then dialed the authorities…
by betweentheeyes on Jun 13, 2010 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Ziller has a beautiful way with words
he can make the worst thing look like a heavenly gift, I love positivism.
Being 3.4% behind the league average is really bad. 3.4% is a big number when we’re talking about hundreds of free throws.
Tyreke’s FTA will most likely increase next season, so that’s a plus for our average too.
Yes, Ziller is great, but this is Section. He's great too.
Don't say stupid shit. You won’t be perceived as stupid. - pookeyguru
by Kfan in Korea on Jun 13, 2010 4:15 AM PDT up reply actions
And since it was me...
The Kings were 17.4-24 from the line per game last year. 18.2 would put them at about the league average. That’s about 1 more made free throw per game. That seems attainable to me.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
WTF? I told you guys - no more mistakes. What part of that didn't you get?
Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do.
-John Wooden
My point of this post -
It is probably much easier to improve free throw percentage than reduce turnovers. Free throws can be improved by practice, whereas turnovers involve making fewer mistakes in ball handling. No one wants to make mistakes. They are not intentional. So, just telling the guys to make fewer mistakes (turnovers) may not be very helpful.
Certainly, having more experience should reduce turnovers over time. I’d be interested in other thoughts by people how turnovers can be reduced.
Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do.
-John Wooden
No, I think that pretty much covers it
Experience for the player in general and running the same offensive sets over time will help reduce that number.
Pacifist ass-kisser
Yes, running the same offensive sets, would help them to execute them more smoothly.
I’m sure they already review tape of the turnovers made in a game to pinpoint where the errors are happening.
Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do.
-John Wooden
I think Sections is pointing out that we only need to eliminate a few turnovers
There are always going to be turnovers, in a fast paced game with frequent ball movement. Whether it’s dribbling or passing which are both essential parts of good team basketball, there are alway going to be turnovers. It’s the stupid ones that need to be eliminated.
Passing the ball to the place a player was after he starts his cut, trying to drive into a crowd and getting called for a charge, and my favorite, traveling as you start to create your drive. Eliminating three of any of those types of turnovers per game and we would lead the league in fewest turnovers.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
Indeed. Eliminate a few turnovers and we are at the league average.
Eliminating three of any of those types of turnovers per game and we would lead the league in fewest turnovers.
Point well taken. Small differences in play can result in a big differences in the win column.
I was just trying to take the point of a coach and looking at how do you get from point A to point B. How do you improve FT% and how do you reduce turnovers?
Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do.
-John Wooden
The wild exuberance of youth should calm into the knowing constraints that are garnered by experience
It is the dance of young teams: Look at the quick progression of this season’s OKC Thunder compared to last year. Or Portland. Both clubs that this team hopes to emulate.
The Kings of today will look different tomorrow. Paradoxically, the tomorrows we seek will not happen overnight.
Deep thoughts from Jack Handy the Patience Preacher.
by betweentheeyes on Jun 13, 2010 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions
You're right. The team will be more experienced next season.
Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do.
-John Wooden
a page borrowed from the wisdom of Section214
S – I – M – P – L – E
by betweentheeyes on Jun 13, 2010 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Nice
This is positive without being Pollyanna. It’s reasonable to expect something closer to 76% FT shooting going forward, and turnovers will improve for the current young players (though adding the No. 5 pick will be a blip next year).
What's wrong with Pollyanna? I think she's got nice pigtails.....
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985......
Maybe we should adjust our stats to per36 years of age? -- ElRonToro
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.....
And Pookey suddenly shows up on multiple FBI child pornography alert lists...
Don't say stupid shit. You won’t be perceived as stupid. - pookeyguru
by Kfan in Korea on Jun 13, 2010 5:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Awkward StR moments.
Truth is, on talent alone, and nothing else, I’d rank DMC 1st.
PookeyGuru- June 1, 2010.
My ft demands are
70% for Bigs, 80% minimum for everyone else. There is no excuse for less.
There are some guys smarter than me, some guys better looking, I take comfort in the fact that there is no guy that is both.
137 players shot enough free throws to be on the "qualified" list -
(Even though many of the Kings did not shoot enough free throws to qualify, lets chart them)
6 shot 90%+ (0 Kings)
60 shot 80% to 89% (Garcia 88%, Udrih 84%)
30 shot 75% to 79% (Evans 75%)
24 shot 70% to 74% (Landry 74% (shot 84% in Houston!), Udoka 74%, Thompson 72%)
14 shot 60% to 69% (Hawes 69%, Casspi 67%, May 66%, Greene 64%, Brockman 60%)
3 shot below 60% (0 Kings)
Now, let’s say that Evans got to 80%, Landry returned to at least 80%, Hawes and Thompson improved to 75% (as a perimeter bigs I think that’s reasonable), Casspi and Greene got to 75%, and Brockman got ot 70%. Based on last year’s numbers, this group would have made a total of 86 more free throws, or the equivalent of a tad over a point a game. This would also make the KIngs the #12 free throw shooting team in the league.
Easier said than done, but it just doesn’t sound that tough, does it?
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
This is why I hate percentages, yes I am a hater
Garcia only shot 17 FT & Beno 137, so it’s nice to see that they shoot well, if they shot 75% it would of only cost the Kings 14pts. And, Spencer shot 6% below your goal for him of 75%, but he only adds 5 pts if he makes his goal.
The reality is that the 1 extra FT that we need to move to #12, has got to come from the players that get to the FT line the most. Tyreke, Carl, JT, Donte & Omri took almost 1200 of the KIngs 1900 FT. And, they missed 357, with Tyreke missing 137. So, while it would be great to have everyone shooting above average from the FT line, the fact is what we really need is for Tyreke & Carl to get to the line at the same rate, but shot in the same range as Beno & Cisco. That’s what stars do, carry their teammates.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
Everybody needs to improve.
I can see that you are trying to address volume versus percentage, but it kinda comes off as the only FT shooting that matters is Tyreke and Carl. I don’t agree. Sure, the highest volume shooters need to improve, but in a game where 2 points matters it could be any of the other players’ misses that cost the game. Everybody needs to step up.
I didn't major in Common F-cking Sense, but ...
I believe everyone needs to improve every part of their game each year.
And, while I do feel that the people that get to the FT line the most, need to make sure that they are top FT shooters. My actual point was that I HATE PERCENTAGES. If you go by Sections percentages, it looks like Cisco is a major positive and Spencer is a major negative. But if Cisco had shot the same % as Spencer, it would of only cost the team 3 pts for the season.
In business, we look at problems, find the causes, and work on them starting with the one that will give us the biggest payback. We use percentages as a starting point. But, only to help us identify issues that we need to look into deeper so we can identify what caused the percentages and then we decide which problems will give us the biggest return for our investment.
So, it comes down to how much work would say JT have to put in to lift his average to 75% which would increase his made FT’s by 10 per season. And, would that time be spent more productively, working on his low post game where he’s also below average.
Tyreke on the other hand needs to work on his shooting. So, perfecting his form will improve his FT stroke. So, in Evans case since he’s the one who takes the most FT’s and his shooting needs to improve anyways, having him put a lot of time working on his FT’s will have the biggest return for the time used.
The most efficient way to improve the team FT percentage is have the players that take the most FT’s improve their shooting, or have the players that shoot the best percentage get to the line more often. Getting everyone to improve would be ideal, but some players don’t shoot enough to be consistent. And, then there’s Shaq.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
by HighTops on Jun 13, 2010 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is a very insightful post. Rec'd for the big picture.
It would be easy to say, have all the players practice for one hour each day to improve their FT percentage, but as you say, this might not be the most efficient use of time. That hour will take away time from something that might be important for a particular player. Time is a limited commodity that has to be apportioned in the most effective way possible.
I would set a team goal of what the overall shooting percentage that I wanted to achieve. As you point out, HT, the percentage of improvement per player could differ based which players take the most FT’s.
Don't let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do.
-John Wooden
I agree with much of this
The only thing is that beyond a couple of players pretty much everybody needs to improve. That was the point and I think it is valid. Time spent on this by everyone would help.
Hate on percentages, but you should not hate on Section’s post. He was addressing the whole team. As a team we pretty much suck. He wasn’t saying anything else. Pretty sure you could both agree on what you are both saying, but I see you missing his point a bit and reading more into it than is there.
You are both making different, but equally good points, that are Apples and Oranges.
I didn't major in Common F-cking Sense, but ...
Can someone answer me this?
Late in the season Evans was shooting technicals when better % ft shooters were on the floor. Why wouldn’t PW want his best free throw shooters at the line in those instances or was it just a way to help Evans to 20-5-5? Don’t want to throw anyone under the bus, or create a ruckus, but saw that situation at a couple of games and (naively) wondered about it.
Purveyor of Bull Plop
Let the flaming begin...
Purveyor of Bull Plop
Well,
amongst the regulars, only Udrih had a better FT%. So the question is, how many times did Evans shoot the “T” while Udrih was on the floor, and how many of those did he miss? Garcia technically had a better percentage as well, but he shot very few FT’s overall.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
I think this is the true answer
but I remember when PW had Casspi shoot a technical, to show that he had confidence in Omri. And, even though Omri had been struggling, he made the FT’s. Sometimes it isn’t form, it’s confidence. And, PW showed a lot of confidence in Tyreke during he season.
Probably one of the most impressive parts of what PW showed as a coach. At least for me.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
There was at least one instance
Where Tyreke went to the line and Beno basically took the ball away from him and said that was his job. The best shooter should shoot.
"I know we certainly gave up a lot to get him, but we do have other players on the perimeter who we can plug in. We haven’t had anybody who we feel is a go-to guy in the post. So we gave up a lot to get a lot, and we’re real excited about adding Carl." - Paul Westphal
Brilliant, "The best shooter should shoot"
god why didn’t I think of that
But, I guess the one exception should be when the Coach says let someone else shoot.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
lol
Please note the 11 next to my name. All others are frauds.
by wallywagon11 on Jun 13, 2010 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Or if the coach is scared of his star rookie
Over if the team is bad and the games are generally not competitive, and it doesn’t matter who shoots the Ts.
"I know we certainly gave up a lot to get him, but we do have other players on the perimeter who we can plug in. We haven’t had anybody who we feel is a go-to guy in the post. So we gave up a lot to get a lot, and we’re real excited about adding Carl." - Paul Westphal
HOW DARE YOU!?!
jk. Understandable question.
Please note the 11 next to my name. All others are frauds.
by wallywagon11 on Jun 13, 2010 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I believe that Evans proved he can hit those free throws in the clutch
Beno could too, but everyone was choking. Evans’ % was lower overall, but he could make those free throws when he needed to, which is why I believe that he was taking those at the end of the games.
...
by prowseinthehouse on Jun 13, 2010 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Those that didn't reach those levels are
below an acceptable professional level in my mind. A non-big below 80 is probably a below average shooter from the field. Its a simplified rule so there will be exceptions but in general it holds true for me.
There are some guys smarter than me, some guys better looking, I take comfort in the fact that there is no guy that is both.
Pretty high standards, maybe too high
only 137 players out of over 400 even attempted enought FT’s to qualify. Of those less than half (66) shot 80% or better. Don’t know for sure, but if the percentages were the same across the league including the non-qualifiers, then less than half all the player in the league shoot that well. But, my guess is the non-qualifiers don’t shoot as well, so the numbers could even be worse.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
To me
its because atheletes are valued over shootesr. Still believe there is no excuse for smalls to shoot less than 80%. If 20 million HS kids can do it, so can Pros,
There are some guys smarter than me, some guys better looking, I take comfort in the fact that there is no guy that is both.
Agree, standards too high.
82 players at or below 6’8" shot enough free throws last season to qualify for the FT percent title in 2010, and 45 of them made 80% or more.
The 37 who fell below that mark include Devin Harris, Brandon Roy, Russell Westbrook, Lebron James and Dwyane Wade.
Just shocks me
although the 5 you name are not good shooters….so what this tells me is the ability to shoot is not a high priority in the NBA
There are some guys smarter than me, some guys better looking, I take comfort in the fact that there is no guy that is both.
Interesting analysis
These are obviously areas of concern, along with better play in the last five minutes of the game in general. Most of these issues should improve with the roster becoming more experienced.
Pacifist ass-kisser
Good stuff Section
I really do think that both free throws (FTs) and turnovers get better next year. I think that PW settles down to a more consistent rotation which should help the turnovers and FT %s tend to go up with years of experience for most players. So there is that.
I think that the only other improvement that merits the same level of causality, for our losses, as these two issues is our bigs. If you add that we lose the battle of the bigs way too often then you have the top three issues for the Kings. It would be interesting to look at the losses and see if the other losses were due to losing the bigs battle…
I didn't major in Common F-cking Sense, but ...
this is good stuff, and helps show why teams generally win more as they gain experience
BUT if we are going to tweak our TOs and FTs toward the League average, then I imagine there must have been a few wins we’d have to forfeit from last year…y’know, a few wins in which we happened to shoot better than League avg FTs and suffer fewer TOs, and if we adjusted those games Ws would turn back to Ls.
Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.
the other thing
and this goes to what BTE is saying is that the Cavs, Mavs and Fakers of the world only need to do enough to beat us. And so HAD we stuck a couple more FTs or avoided a couple more TOs, they would have ratcheted up their own intensity, and maybe they still win these games.
But big picture, I agree that small improvements mean a lot, and that this team is improving.
Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.
There were only two games that met this criteria
And I think that this misses the point that Westphal is making.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
what was P-Dub's point that I'm missin'?
Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.
That reducing turnovers and increasing FT% would lead to more wins
Like I said, s-i-m-p-l-e.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
I don't think I "missed" that point as much as expressed a reservation about it.
Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.
S-I-M-P-L-E
S – Show up and hustle
I – Into the paint, get there, that is where most rebounds happen
M – Man up and grab your balls the rebound
P – Put a body on your man and block him out
L – Look for the ball. You can’t rebound it if you don’t see it.
E – Everybody needs to be rebounding. It isn’t just the bigs who need to get after it.
I didn't major in Common F-cking Sense, but ...
I seem to recall that when Pat Riley took over the L@kers
He challenged the team individually to improve their games in the major categories by 1%. As it was a long time ago I don’t recall the exact #’s but overall the team improved by something like 5% with the biggest improvements coming from his best players. Overall it represented a huge improvement and it was S.I.M.P.L.E.
"I make love to pressure" - Stephen Jackson
by Bluejohn on Jun 13, 2010 5:13 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
In how many games
did we shoot better than average on free throws and commit fewer than average turnovers and barely win?
Do the same exercise, subtract those wins and you possibly end up with a wash.
"I know we certainly gave up a lot to get him, but we do have other players on the perimeter who we can plug in. We haven’t had anybody who we feel is a go-to guy in the post. So we gave up a lot to get a lot, and we’re real excited about adding Carl." - Paul Westphal
I think he actually did that NewEraKings
Please note the 11 next to my name. All others are frauds.
by wallywagon11 on Jun 13, 2010 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions
crud nevermine
got mixed up there, I’ll shut up
Please note the 11 next to my name. All others are frauds.
by wallywagon11 on Jun 13, 2010 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions
I think the turnovers are because of NaPG
no great passers, and also after Reke and Beno there are no ball handlers, really.
"Who Wants some pudding pops?, delicious and nutritious!
The KIngs averaged only 2 more turnovers than the best team in the league
Nash, Rondo, D.Williams and D. Rose must also be NaPG because they are all in the top 10 in most turnovers per game. But, that’s what happens when you handle the ball more than anyone else.
I’d rather concentrate on the traveling calls and the charging and the setting of moving picks than worry about our PG’s.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
This this this!
I wish we were able to see stats regarding the volume of non-lost ball turnovers. It seems like the non-lost ball (NLB) TOs were abnormally high for the Kings.
What? Another charging call? What? Another moving screen? Playing football on the court again? Who knew you had to dribble the ball to run with it?
Purely by the eye test (which is very sketchy at best) it seems like Sacramento’s biggest problems came from dumb mistakes even more than bad passes. Just play fundamental basketball a little better and you fix a lot of the problem.
And have Landry/Evans make their FTs.
by nobodyinparticular on Jun 13, 2010 11:17 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
82games.com has some numbers
Link: http://www.82games.com/0910/0910SAC3.HTM
They have the Kings with 168 Off Fouls, 17 more than opponents
Bad passes 481 to opponets 482
Ball Handling 552 to opponents 452= big 100 more
And, Other (unknown what that is) Kings 24 opponent 37.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
Just clarification...
Is traveling considered an offensive fould or a ballhandling foul?
by nobodyinparticular on Jun 14, 2010 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Traveling isn't a foul
Traveling is listed under rule 10 section XIII of the NBA rule book under Violations and Penalties.
Other items in this catagory:
Timeline violation
Offensive and Defensive 3 Second violation
Kicking the ball
to name a few. It’s basicly a violation of the rules resulting in a turnover or change of possession.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
Some of those games
were made closer by late-game stat stuffing. The Mavs game where we were down big and made a late run to lose by two is a prime example. If the game is closer, the Mavs probably play it a little different down the stretch.
I think if the team plays better, they’ll win more games. Like you say, it’s simple. It would also help if they had better players.
"I know we certainly gave up a lot to get him, but we do have other players on the perimeter who we can plug in. We haven’t had anybody who we feel is a go-to guy in the post. So we gave up a lot to get a lot, and we’re real excited about adding Carl." - Paul Westphal
You guys are overcooking this thing
Thompson said that it is Westphal’s contention that better free throw shooitng and a reduction in turnovers would have led / will lead to more wins. The numbers seem to back that up. No more, no less.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
The Kings outscored the Mavs by one point in the 4th quarter of that game
So it would appear that it was a relatively close game. 5 point game at the half, 3 point game after 3 quarters.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
It was a nine-point Dallas lead with 25 seconds left
And the Kings made two three pointers in the last two seconds and three in the last 24 seconds. Read all about it.
So the game was not really as close as the final score. You have to hand it to the Kings for playing to the end in that one, though.
"I know we certainly gave up a lot to get him, but we do have other players on the perimeter who we can plug in. We haven’t had anybody who we feel is a go-to guy in the post. So we gave up a lot to get a lot, and we’re real excited about adding Carl." - Paul Westphal
Right
And there were three turnovers during that stretch where Dallas extended the lead in the 4th.
You may have a new handle, but you’re the same old spinster and I’ve already grown tired of you. You’ll have to finish this argument by yourself, which I am sure that you are more than capable of doing.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
Sorry
But if you are going to selectively package facts and mislead in the process, don’t be surprised if you get called on it.
"I know we certainly gave up a lot to get him, but we do have other players on the perimeter who we can plug in. We haven’t had anybody who we feel is a go-to guy in the post. So we gave up a lot to get a lot, and we’re real excited about adding Carl." - Paul Westphal
Are you fucking serious?
This comes from a person who all of last season kept throwing useless and stupid made up statistics around like: the Kings are 15-5 when Nocioni takes 4+ three pointers, or the Kings are 13-7 when Brockman plays more than 17 minutes. No one manipulates ‘facts’ or changes the subject and redirects arguments more than you, sir.
Section did his research and already on his posts above told us the other side of the coin; it’s not our problem you continue to ignore that. At this point, all you’re doing is trolling and I’d have more respect for you if you actually admitted you’re doing it on purpose. You’re whole “I’m fighting the powers” and “you’re all group-thinkers” is old and boring.
I promised I wasn’t going to reply to your bullshit anymore but this is truly unbelievable. I hope section doesn’t reply to this crap because he’s definitely the bigger man. I’m a different story though. It’s so irritating that a grown man feels the need to come to an online blog to get attention and antagonize everyone around. I’m just a 24 year old kid to many people around here but I can at least respect the community and I’m happy enough to consider some of these people friends. I’m sorry you can’t have that.
Why don’t you just go write your own blog? It’s obvious that everyone is tired of the same old crap. Everyone mocked you on your last post about Kevin; 95% of comments in that thread made fun of it. It was so bad you actually had to change your screen name because of it. Even then, people gave you the benefit of the doubt as NewEraKings (believe me, it wasn’t hard to realize it was you) but of course, it’s still the same stuff.
I’m usually a very respectful person, but you sir, are truly sad. Unfortunately for you, you have one less person that’s going to give you the attention you so badly need. Have a good night.
"Children want what they want when they want it." ... Andy Sims
by edm7 on Jun 13, 2010 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Now take this shoe...
And stick it up your ass!
...
by prowseinthehouse on Jun 13, 2010 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is directed at NewEra, not Ed, by the way
...
by prowseinthehouse on Jun 13, 2010 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions
You've missed the point prowse
The shoe is already up Ed’s ass.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985......
Maybe we should adjust our stats to per36 years of age? -- ElRonToro
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.....
You missed the point Pookey
That’s why shoes come in pairs
...
by prowseinthehouse on Jun 13, 2010 9:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Ed
I doubt it. Guys like you just can’t stay away.
I changed the screen name to NewEraKings to reflect the changes on the Kings and to get away from the stupid complaints that I was promoting my business with the other tag.
It’s not surprising that 95% of the regular posters here can swim the same way in a circle of blood. I stand by my opinions on Kevin Martin, which were more balanced, pro and con, than most folks you will find on here.
I’m also amused when folks mistakenly think GroupThink means everyone thinks the same thing. It’s more about the tactics used to sustain cliques and keep different ideas and people out of the loop. It’s a buttsaving maneuver used to keep your spot in the current pecking order. You’re doing a good job at it in the post above.
"I know we certainly gave up a lot to get him, but we do have other players on the perimeter who we can plug in. We haven’t had anybody who we feel is a go-to guy in the post. So we gave up a lot to get a lot, and we’re real excited about adding Carl." - Paul Westphal
I figured
You had gone to jail for fleecing your clients. Bummer for us, you’re either at some country club prison with internet access, or there wasn’t enough evidence to convict.
Ultimately, your reputation will continue to follow you, regardless of your attempts to hide from the shame of the CCR tag.
Turns out you’re still the dull, contrarian douchenugget you’ve always been. And you might as well blow the dust off your original name, since there’s no “new era” involved in your posting style.
Pacifist ass-kisser
There is no shame
in expressing free thought.
My newsletter services have broadly outpaced the market averages. My first service has beaten the Nasdaq by more than 15% a year since the Hulbert Financial Digest began tracking it in 1999 and is the No. 1 newsletter in terms of performance in that time frame. My ETF newsletter is the No. 1 report in terms of performance per Hulbert in the past five years.
And, in case you haven’t noticed, I don’t really give a damn what you think about me. Carry on.
"I know we certainly gave up a lot to get him, but we do have other players on the perimeter who we can plug in. We haven’t had anybody who we feel is a go-to guy in the post. So we gave up a lot to get a lot, and we’re real excited about adding Carl." - Paul Westphal
by NewEraKings on Jun 14, 2010 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions
You cared enough to give me your resume
I’m surprised you didn’t tell me the length of your penis.
Congrats on your newsletter though!
Pacifist ass-kisser
I don't care what you think
And I’m not as interested in a back-and-forth pissathon as you apparently are. But I will answer false attacks that are intended to damage my reputation. I’ll try to stick to responding to your basketball comments when you post those every once in a while.
"I know we certainly gave up a lot to get him, but we do have other players on the perimeter who we can plug in. We haven’t had anybody who we feel is a go-to guy in the post. So we gave up a lot to get a lot, and we’re real excited about adding Carl." - Paul Westphal
by NewEraKings on Jun 14, 2010 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Sorry
I didn’t mean to scare you. Take a nap and go back to sucking your thumb. :)
"I know we certainly gave up a lot to get him, but we do have other players on the perimeter who we can plug in. We haven’t had anybody who we feel is a go-to guy in the post. So we gave up a lot to get a lot, and we’re real excited about adding Carl." - Paul Westphal
"Everyone"
It’s obvious that everyone is tired of the same old crap.
Maybe “everyone” in your little clique, but on a board where more than 95% of the posts are made by less than 5% of the readers, nothing is obvious. I’ll wait for the lurkers to weigh in.
In any case, this is just sports, not real life. It’s a diversion, not a life-and-death matter. I wouldn’t get so worked up over it if I was you, and I’d definitely suggest you waste less of your life here.
"I know we certainly gave up a lot to get him, but we do have other players on the perimeter who we can plug in. We haven’t had anybody who we feel is a go-to guy in the post. So we gave up a lot to get a lot, and we’re real excited about adding Carl." - Paul Westphal
I'm not sure what I missed here
The Kings had a true shooting percentage of 58% that night. Had they turned the ball over seven fewer times (14 to’s instead of 21), those seven extra shots would have translated into 8 more points if you use the 58% number. Add the one free throw that would have brought them up to league average, and they score nine more points, winning the game 111-105.
See, the way this works is, if they had turned the ball over less, they would likely not have fallen 10 points behind in the 4th quarter. That is the genesis of what Westphal is imparting to his players – there were games that could/would have been won had the Kings turned the ball over less and made more free throws. And not even to an outstanding level – just convert to the league average.
I’m not sure how I was selective here. I said at the outset that this was a fairly simple exploration, but you have to look at everything like it’s the freaking Zapruder film. And once we explore a game to it’s core, we discover that Westphal’s contention has a lot of merit. You’re wrong on this one – deal with it. Yes, there is no guarantee that the Kings would have won this game. But had they turned the ball over seven fewer times and made one more free throw, they would have been in a much better position in a game that they lost by only three points.
And I don’t mind when someone “calls” me on something. But you’ve called me on nothing here. You introduced the fact that the KIngs fell behind by 10 points in the 4th quarter of a game that they could have been winning had they taken better care of the ball, which-was-the-point-that-Westphal-was-making-to-his-players.
Spin, spin, spin, coolcat. Spin until you spin away.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
If there was no CC.......
…..would there be yarn?
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985......
Maybe we should adjust our stats to per36 years of age? -- ElRonToro
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.....
I said at the outset that this was a fairly simple exploration, but you have to look at everything like it’s the freaking Zapruder film.
Too big.
"I feel ten feet tall right now...and strong as an ox!"
What your "analysis" misses
is that it’s likely other differences in the game would have been dictated by the Kings playing better and the Mavericks, as the better team on their home floor, still would have prevailed through the use of different tactics such as running more clock, using different players, playing better D because now they had to instead of letting the Kings make six meaningless points in the last two seconds.
But if you are naive enough to think that they would have won that game 111-105, put it in the books. Let the moral victory parade begin.
I think it’s enough to say that the Kings will be more competitive if they play better in all areas. Your attempt at analysis is food for thought, but in the end proves nothing.
"I know we certainly gave up a lot to get him, but we do have other players on the perimeter who we can plug in. We haven’t had anybody who we feel is a go-to guy in the post. So we gave up a lot to get a lot, and we’re real excited about adding Carl." - Paul Westphal
I think he realizes that those things do factor in
but he said this is a completely simple little look at the difference that ONLY turnovers and free throws would have made and that looking any further is over analyzing it.
...
by prowseinthehouse on Jun 14, 2010 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions
If it were that simple, it would be a useful exercise
But it isn’t.
"I know we certainly gave up a lot to get him, but we do have other players on the perimeter who we can plug in. We haven’t had anybody who we feel is a go-to guy in the post. So we gave up a lot to get a lot, and we’re real excited about adding Carl." - Paul Westphal
It's no less useful than the hundreds of draft boards on here.
It’s for fun. If everything we post on here has to have some kind of tangible use, then we should be working for the team not posting on some blog.
...
by prowseinthehouse on Jun 14, 2010 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions
So refreshing and life affirming.
The ways some things stay constant. Like the fact that you are such an ass. It really gives one a feeling that there are truly stable truism in this universe.
I didn't major in Common F-cking Sense, but ...
I forgot to Rec this post, but have corrected that
One of the things that I liked was that this was straightforward and SIMPLE. It didn’t try to focus on too many subtle and ill-defined things that can never be truly measured. Like if teams responded by running more clock, using different players, or playing better D at the end of a close game.
Really great job!
I didn't major in Common F-cking Sense, but ...
I believe that everything in a game is dependant on what happened before
Players and teams respond to ‘time and score’ (or should). So when Grant whines about a 1st quarter Tech and the resulting point, I think thats just stupid to say that it influenced the outcome – even in a one point game.
However I think Section’s analysis is right on. Not saying we’d have won all of those games against good teams because there would have been different reactions from the other team – but I’ll bet at least half
Thanks for the research, I’ve been curious about this since Westphal said that at the the end of the season.
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
Lend the eye a terrible aspect
- and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
