Give me the stats. I would be interested to see them. As far as Eye test goes......Brooks and IT are Terrible defenders. They are net better than Jimmer.Originally Posted by sdballer
Give me the stats. I would be interested to see them. As far as Eye test goes......Brooks and IT are Terrible defenders. They are net better than Jimmer.
Jimmer has the worst defensive rating on the team, the lowest defensive win shares, is the worst defensive rebounder, the worst at steal % and generally can't guard guys that are quicker than he is laterally which is just about every guard in the nba. His effort and focus have improved this year and he seems to be getting better at team d but even with how bad brooks/it can be on d, jimmer is still worse.
ok. after that comment, i can NEVER take anything you say seriously ever again
You guys need to focus on Brooks and IT on the defensive end the same way you do for Jimmer. They are bad. They usually have the benefit of playing with Tyreke, Demarcus and JT. Jimmer isn't a great defender and he has his nights that he looks terrible on the defensive end but he isn't nearly as bad as he was last year and Brooks and It are just too small to defend.
other than the occasions of them getting posted up by bigger guys i havent seen any problems. and that can usually be blamed on the coach putting them in a bad matchup problem.
if jimmer played as much as Brooks it would be disgusting to watch how badly the other teams PG killed him throughout the game
Brooks is a pretty decent defender at PG, maybe about average, while IT is slightly below average on top of his height hurting him, and Jimmer's the worst of the three. Both the eye test and defensive stats show Jimmer is the worst of the three, and the other aspect is that's largely against backup 1's and 2's, while Brooks is facing off against starting PG's most of the time.
Are any of them great defensively? No, but just because Brooks and IT aren't great doesn't really have anything to do with Jimmer's defense. And while you sit here and say Brooks and IT are just too small to defend, even with the size disadvantage they're still better on that end than Jimmer, which would mean Jimmer is even worse given his size advantage over those two, if you're bringing up size and using it in this argument. If in your mind IT/Brooks are too small and Jimmer has an advantage by being bigger, than he's even worse given with his size advantage over those two.
Show me any stats which show Jimmer is a better defender than IT or Jimmer. You must have some stats to back up your assertion, right? I mean, coming on here and saying what you are without any stats to back it up would be foolish.
Last edited by rainmaker; 12-10-2012 at 03:39 PM.
“Sacramento is where I want to be,’’ he said. “I want to bring the organization back, help the organization get started back winning. I love the city of Sacramento. That’s where I want to be. End of story. “We can dig a hole, throw that topic in there, cover it with dirt, pack it down. I want to be in Sacramento. End of story.’’ -DeMarcus Cousins
Our franchise literally is about to rise from the ashes.
Jimmer will never become a great defender sitting on the bench. I don't know if he has a defensive upside but I understand the frustration of his fans.
Brooks should be the best as he has been in the league longest. IT has always had to play defense or he wouldn't have played even in college. A guy his size has to bust his butt at all aspects of basketball. Jimmer didn't play much defense in college and perhaps he was told to save energy on defense so he could carry the offensive load. Defense is a foreign language to him as a guy with one year's experience in the NBA and given the situation he came from. I think this issue doesn't have an easy answer unless being satisfied with who is best in December 2012 is the only answer we need worry about.
Upwards and onwards.
I think the per 36 number is interesting, and perhaps more revelant to a player thats averaging somewhere between 27 and 32 minutes a game. But once you drop down significantly, I think it loses its value. Basicly because not every player can sustain the same rate as the minutes increase. For instance, a fresh player with fresh legs might be averaging 22 points a game per 36 while only playing 16 minutes a game. But when asked to actually play 36 minutes, fatigue sets in and the numbers drop. In essence, its a player by player situation. Cousins per 36 numbers his first year were very good, but obviously with his conditioning at that time, he never would have been able to sustain those numbers.
In Cousins case now, I think his per 36 numbers are more revelant since he's playing around 30 minutes a game now. The extreme of course is to take a player thats playing 12 minutes a game and say his per 36 numbers compare to Kobe or LeBron. One thing is true. The more minutes per game you play, the harder it is to sustain the same level of play. Thats what separates the stars from the also ran's.
Its hard to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard.
Most bigs that play around the basket usually average 50% or above. However, bigs that play in the high post and take shots from that spot, usually shoot under 50%. But, there's no doubt that Cuz is shooting a little too low. I could live with 47%. I think that would be more than acceptable. The irony of the situation is, that a lot of his misses come in the post. I agree, that at times its like he just throws the ball up at the basket with the idea that he'll get the rebound and have an easier shot with the put back.
Sometimes when you look at the post game stats, it looks like Cuz dominated the ball taking 17 or 18 shots. But in truth, there are times in the game when he'll take three shots total off a missed shot in the span of a few seconds and come away with a basket. It doesn't do much for his FGP, but he's hardly dominating the ball.
Its hard to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard.
The stats aren't quite as dramatic as you make it sound.... Every source I looked at has all three guards pretty close in various defensive statistics.... Hoopdata actually has Jimmer as the best of the 3 across the defensive metrics (except steals). And he doesn't foul as frequently.
I think the mere fact that you, and many on this fourm, including myself, feel that so goes Cousins, so goes the Kings, because that is what were saying here. That in itself, speaks volumes about his talent. For a big man in just his third year, which means he still figuring it out to some extent, he's doing just fine. By no means am I disregarding what steps he needs to take to be great. I just think he's on his way and its just a matter of time. So while criticism is certainly warranted at times, were dammed lucky to have him on our team.
The team just proved it could win a couple of games without Tyreke. I don't think its proved it can win without Cousins.
Its hard to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard.
baja's last sentence says it all. Cuz still has a bunch of growing in the NBA sense and maturing to do to start getting on the Aal Star team. But so does 75% of the team (need growth and maturity) which makes it all the harder for Cuz.
Last edited by CruzDude; 12-10-2012 at 05:06 PM.
My old red bike gets me around
to the bars and beaches of my town
and there aren't many reasons I would leave
– yes, I have found me some peace.
Jimmy Buffett
14 points, 7 rebounds, and 1 assist
11 points, 4 rebounds, and 0 assists
21 points, 13 rebounds, and 1 assist
23 points, 15 rebounds, and 1 assist
21 points, 11 rebounds, and 0 assists
14 points, 9 rebounds, and 3 assists
9 points, 16 rebounds, and 7 assists
29 points, 7 rebounds, and 3 assists
7 points, 8 rebounds, and 2 assists
14 points, 7 rebounds, and 4 assists
14 points, 9 rebounds, and 3 assists
20 points, 5 rebounds, and 2 assists
19 points, 16 rebounds, and 1 assist
8 points, 6 rebounds and 0 assists ( This was the Clipper game where everyone stunk, and Cuz only played 17 minutes)
25 points, 13 rebounds, and 1 assist
17 points, 14 rebounds, and 4 assists
19 points, 12 rebounds, and 2 assists
Please be so kind to point out the 50% of the games that were bad, and if bad, by comparison to who?
Its hard to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard.
While I think Jimmer is capable of being a better defender over time, I think it all comes down to whether the other things he'll eventually bring to the game compensate for the areas in which he's lacking. Similiar to other PG's that are not the best defenders in the world, but they're still starting in the NBA because of other skills. Only time will tell. Whether with us, or someone else.
Its hard to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard.
So not that much worse than the others still equals worse, right? And this is with him often being buried on the weakest offensive player on the court.
Totals don't mean much when were talking about points. Look at his field goals attempted compared to his points. If he has to shoot 5 for 17 to score 15 points, he's hurting the team if we end the game with 80 field goals attempted and 90 total points.
I'm sure Marcus Thornton's point totals look decent as well. If it takes 20 shots to score 20 points, you aren't really doing your team any favors. It'll take someone else on the team who is more efficient to win the game for you.
Well, maybe, but that's moving the goalposts. You said that the reason why Cousins wasn't helping the team win was because he was having bad games more than half the time. And then, when bajaden demonstrated how that is not true, you not only failed to defend your original argument that Cousins played poorly, you then said the games he did play well in don't count, because he shoots a lot. Well, shooting a low percentage does not, in and of itself, tell you whether you had a bad game, either. I wouldn't rely on points as being a sole determining factor, at all. Or even the most important determining factor. How good was his defense? How did his rebounds, prevent the other team from getting out in transition? Did he draw doubles, to create shots for his teammates?
I would submit that the night Cousins went for 9/16/7, he had a pretty good game, even if he went 4-19.
KingsFans.com Terrorism Threat Level: EXCITED
He didn't demonstrate anything other than numbers that look good from afar but don't look quite as good when you get into them. Where are the shooting percentages and turnovers? I don't have the time, nor desire to delve into each game and explain to you guys why the numbers aren't as good as they seem. I'll do one and you can figure out the rest if you wish.
First game against the Pacers, Cousins had 21 and 13. Great game when you say it like that. Then you look closer and you see it took him 27 shots to get 21 points. That's awful. If the whole team played like that, we'd basically score 80 points and lose the game by 20+. Yeah rebounds matter, he had 13 total and 7 of them offensive. I'm guessing at least half of his offensive boards added to his point total. So basically he took a crap load of shots, secured a crap load of offensive rebounds and still couldn't have a nice offensive game. Most of his games are like this, maybe not as extreme but you just flat out aren't helping your team if you're consistently attempting more field goals than points scored.
I'm pretty sure points are the #1 determining factor to winning a game. Obviously there are a ton of other factors but points are and will always be #1.
Just look at the box scores....they don't lie. When Cousins is scoring efficiently, they win almost every time. The games against Brooklyn and Chicago are the only two real efficient games where Cousins played well and they still lost.
Cousins should be able to score at a 50% rate more often than anyone on our team. He's only shot 50% or better in 5 out of 17 games. That's awful for a big man. There are guys on the team that Cousins should be giving his shots to based on percentages alone. Brooks firing up a 3 is more efficient than Cousins stumbling into the lane and throwing up garbage to try and draw a foul.
Last edited by ESP47; 12-10-2012 at 06:49 PM.
13 rebounds are good, no matter what he shot. 15 rebounds are good, no matter what he shot. 16 rebounds are good, no matter what he shot. The assists also matter. What was his free throw percentage in those games? How many charges did he draw? Did he get T'd up in those games? There is so much more to whether or not Cousins had a good game than how many shots he took.
Points scored or points allowed? If you score 105, and give up 109, then your offensive efficiency was hardly the determining factor.
Last edited by Mr. S£im Citrus; 12-10-2012 at 07:03 PM.
KingsFans.com Terrorism Threat Level: EXCITED
Well with Cousins and JT FGA and ORpg tend to be correlated. They sometimes take 3 shots/tips to get a bucket. The result is 1-3 FG and 2 offensive boards.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks