Derrick Rose, Tyreke Evans.

[nuraman00]

Looking at Rose's shooting percentages from 10-15 feet, and 16-23 feet:

http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Derrick%20Rose

They got better for his middle years, but now are back down to his rookie levels.

Hmm.

For Evans, his %'s have gotten worse every year, and he's at 22.2% from 10-15 feet, 24.0% from 16-23 feet.

http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Tyreke%20Evans

Now, the good thing about Evans is that he doesn't shoot very often from there. Only 0.7 attempts from 10-15 feet, and 3.4 attempts from 16-23 feet.

He seems to know what his strengths are. He takes a ton of shots "at rim", where he's as successful as Derrick Rose is there.

I just think going forward, 5-6 years down the line, it's going to be harder to get as many shots at the rim, so he'll have to expand his range. Maybe not to 23 feet, but at least to 16 feet.

I wouldn't want him taking too many more shots from out there, just want him to increase his accuracy.

I do think Evans is a bit more awkward at the rim though, than either Rose or Rondo. Evans takes it a bit too strong, he doesn't have enough finesse.
And be able to use the dribble more effectively there.

I wouldn't mind a Rondo-Evans pairing, because they barely shoot from 16 feet. No, they can't make shots from out there, but the good thing is that they don't take shots from out there either. With Rondo specifically, he's likely to pass, as he knows he's not good from there.

[Eze]

My really only concern with Rondo/Evans is just the cramming in the paint teams would do. It would hurt their games, for one, and two, hurt Cousins' - at least, that's how it would seem on paper.

Of course, that all assumes Boston would want our first along with JJ Hickson and something else.

[nuraman00]

My really only concern with Rondo/Evans is just the cramming in the paint teams would do. It would hurt their games, for one, and two, hurt Cousins' - at least, that's how it would seem on paper.

Of course, that all assumes Boston would want our first along with JJ Hickson and something else.

With Cousins, as with some players, I don't think it matters what type of PG you put next to him.

For example, Zach Randolph has been similar through a variety of PGs.

Cousins is enough of a force that he'll get his shots, one way or another.

I think players that rely 100% on their athleticism for 15-20 points a game are the ones that need a good PG more. Or players with bad hands.

I'm not saying there aren't benefits to having a good PG. Just that with certain players, their numbers don't really change, playing with one PG or another. They'll still play the same way, and get the ball in the same spots.

I'm also hoping a coach can come up with schemes to solve that problem. The Kings wouldn't be the first team to have a team with guards like that, but there are ways to minimize that.

For example, the Grizzlies now and the Spurs a few years ago had two bigs that play in the post, but the way they space the floor and move the ball, it works out.

If the Kings play like an impatient young team that tries to take the first shot, then a Rondo-Evans pairing would be as disastrous as perceived.

But with a good coach, and with Rondo being a veteran, I think they can work through it.

Anyways, I don't think the Kings have anything to offer Boston. Rondo was almost being traded for Chris Paul, not JJ Hickson and a draft pick.

[Eze]

I wasn't so much saying that Rondo and Cousins wouldn't mesh, just that you'd assume opposing defenses would collapse on him and force Rondo/Evans to beat them with jumpers.

[bloatedmaniac]

My really only concern with Rondo/Evans is just the cramming in the paint teams would do. It would hurt their games, for one, and two, hurt Cousins' - at least, that's how it would seem on paper.

Of course, that all assumes Boston would want our first along with JJ Hickson and something else.

Yeah, Boston wants a superstar or potential superstar for Rondo. The Kings would be lucky to get Bostons first for JJ. Unless the Kings add Tyreke or Cousins to add to the 1st and whatever, no dice. Your concerns are perfectly accurate though, as we already see defenses surround the paint against the Kings. The team would need a bonafide range presence on the floor to keep things spread, and maybe a 4/5 that pairs with Cousins who can come out and nail jumpers.

I'm not too concerned about Tyreke's shot. Most players who shoot poorly, traditionally shoot poorly until later in their careers. Its about doing other things on a consistant basis that matter. You know, like not taking 10 seconds to get back on defense or dribbling stationary for 20 seconds then jack up a desperation prayer that doesn't even hit rim.

I did find this article amusing:

"Tyreke Evans: When somebody makes a documentary about the 2011-12 Kings, it's either going to be called The Sacramento Black Holes, Tyreke Takes It Himself or Wide Open: The Chuck Hayes Story. And the trailer is definitely going to have Paul Westphal or Keith Smart screaming Norman Dale-style, "What did I tell you guys? I want no passes before every shot! You hear me? NO PASSES!""

[nuraman00]

Your concerns are perfectly accurate though, as we already see defenses surround the paint against the Kings.

We see it because the Kings aren't coached to do anything better, and the players don't do anything better. (Last night being an exception).

It's not like the Jazz have shooters either, and they have two staring bigs who score in the paint. (Unlike Cousins and Hayes, or Cousins and Thompson). But they still move the ball better.

They're 16th in assist rate this year, and could finish higher as they're in a logjam with that ranking.

Haywood, Harris, and Miles aren't great shooters, and it's not like Bell's 6 points a game are going to make a difference. But they still get it done on offense, and have the 8th best offense in the league.

The Kings could work around these obstacles if they had a more difficult system.

[bloatedmaniac]

We see it because the Kings aren't coached to do anything better, and the players don't do anything better. (Last night being an exception).

It's not like the Jazz have shooters either, and they have two staring bigs who score in the paint. (Unlike Cousins and Hayes, or Cousins and Thompson). But they still move the ball better.

They're 16th in assist rate this year, and could finish higher as they're in a logjam with that ranking.

Haywood, Harris, and Miles aren't great shooters, and it's not like Bell's 6 points a game are going to make a difference. But they still get it done on offense, and have the 8th best offense in the league.

The Kings could work around these obstacles if they had a more difficult system.

If you have never been taught to drive a car, you should still know not to run a red right or run into a pedestrian. The biggest part of the Kings is they have very unintelligent players. Coaching can go only so far, but when players lack BBIQ or BB Common sense there is little hope. The Suns game where they had 3-4 players sitting in the paint on defense, yet the Kings charged straight into about 15 times was a telltale sign of the stupidity we are blessed with. Or the face that 3 years into his NBA career, coaches still need to yell to Tyreke to not wait until there are 3 seconds left on the shotclock to start the play :banghead:

So yes, rotating, spacing, passing does create a lot of options. Coaching does help to employ those methods. Stupid players unfortunately do counteract a lot of that. Thats why teams aren't swarming to acquire Blatche.

[Eze]

Utah is simply more efficient in their shooting. They only shoot 12 3's a game (at a better percentage) compared to the Kings, who shoot 20. They also have eight guys who play 15+ plus (give or take) shooting +44% (I gave Hayward the nod since he's .2% behind) or higher. Kings have...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it.............one shooting plus 43.6%.

[nuraman00]

If you have never been taught to drive a car, you should still know not to run a red right or run into a pedestrian. The biggest part of the Kings is they have very unintelligent players. Coaching can go only so far, but when players lack BBIQ or BB Common sense there is little hope. The Suns game where they had 3-4 players sitting in the paint on defense, yet the Kings charged straight into about 15 times was a telltale sign of the stupidity we are blessed with. Or the face that 3 years into his NBA career, coaches still need to yell to Tyreke to not wait until there are 3 seconds left on the shotclock to start the play :banghead:

So yes, rotating, spacing, passing does create a lot of options. Coaching does help to employ those methods. Stupid players unfortunately do counteract a lot of that. Thats why teams aren't swarming to acquire Blatche.

:( Agree, but shouldn't it be easiest to change younger players, than older ones? I guess that's the eternal question on how good these Kings can be, and what may limit them.

Also, I'm trying to find data on when during the Kings shot clock they take their shots (i.e. 10% of shots with 20+ seconds remaining, 34% between 15-20 seconds remaining, etc.), but I can't find it.

Since the Kings are 3rd in pace, they don't get that many shot clock violations lately. At least I don't remember too many during the past month.

I don't think any player on the Kings has reached Blatche status yet.

[nuraman00]

Utah is simply more efficient in their shooting. They only shoot 12 3's a game (at a better percentage) compared to the Kings, who shoot 20. They also have eight guys who play 15+ plus (give or take) shooting +44% (I gave Hayward the nod since he's .2% behind) or higher. Kings have...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it.............one shooting plus 43.6%.

But are they more efficient because of their "rotating, spacing, passing", while also having guards who aren't great shooters, somewhat similar to the Kings?

[kingraider412]

This thread is hilarious.. Reke is not even good enough to hold Rose's jock.. Forget stats, just look at the laundry list of Intangibles Rose brings to the game. Number one, Rose has a super-high through the roof BB IQ. Rose has an outside jumper that strikes fear in defenders, Rose makes all the players around him better, a born leader and a future hall of famer. Reke is none of those and Reke's window for being even half of What Rose represents is closing fast. Please don't compare, it's a joke to even suggest it.

[nuraman00]

This thread is hilarious.. Reke is not even good enough to hold Rose's jock.. Forget stats, just look at the laundry list of Intangibles Rose brings to the game. Number one, Rose has a super-high through the roof BB IQ. Rose has an outside jumper that strikes fear in defenders, Rose makes all the players around him better, a born leader and a future hall of famer. Reke is none of those and Reke's window for being even half of What Rose represents is closing fast. Please don't compare, it's a joke to even suggest it.

I didn't compare Evans with Rose, nor claim Evans was close to Rose.

I just compared their shooting percentages in the midrange area, and was thinking whether Evans can improve in that area to as good as Rose. Even if he did, he would still be lacking in other areas, but that would at least be something Evans could be decent at.

All I did was track how two young players, who didn't have good jumpers coming into the league, have progressed so far.

[kingraider412]

I know Brother.. Reke's athletic ability is crazy ridiculous, but his commitment to being special is just not there.. and it frustrating to see. Just doesn't seem to have the mental fortitude to be great, just good. Should be an awesome game tommorrow. I am psyched. a real test against a rested Hawks team. If we win tommorrow, now that's some progress.

[Eze]

But are they more efficient because of their "rotating, spacing, passing", while also having guards who aren't great shooters, somewhat similar to the Kings?

I'd say a good majority is their basketball IQ and ability to know how to play the game more efficiently. Reke's just schoolyarding it out there - no rhyme or reason, just reacting. Same could be said for a handful of other Kings like Thornton and Jimmer. Thomas is really the only guard on the Kings with any solid basketball IQ right now. I think Jimmer can grow into it though.

[nuraman00]

I'd say a good majority is their basketball IQ and ability to know how to play the game more efficiently. Reke's just schoolyarding it out there - no rhyme or reason, just reacting. Same could be said for a handful of other Kings like Thornton and Jimmer. Thomas is really the only guard on the Kings with any solid basketball IQ right now. I think Jimmer can grow into it though.

That's partly why I don't think he is that talented. He doesn't make moves on offense that require thought and skill. Andre Miller and Sam Cassell, for example, had great midrange games.

It's also just the way he operates with the ball, in the paint, whether he looks to score or pass.

[nuraman00]

Tony Parker was another one that grew a lot mentally from his rookie year, to his 3rd year.

He wasn't that bad his 2nd year either, but they did need to go to Speedy Claxton a few times because Parker was a little too wild for Pop.

[Eze]

Not sure how truly accurate it is, but much like "age 27" for wide receivers in the NFL, "third year guards" are supposedly when players are supposed to take off to that next level.