Ben working with Kings to find a new place to play?
- Thread starter 9x1x6
- Start date
He ranks below Nik in RPM who the 76er fans are absolutely brutal towards and rightfully so.
I'll tell you something else....when a guy needs all sorts of conditions to perform he's not very good. When he needs to be on the floor with certain guys, need certain types of plays or non-plays run for him, and Marco has said recently "he doesn't like plays run for him" ("Oh really?!?") and needs more minutes to get his groove or whatever bullcrap he wants to offer, it is to compensate for lack of talent.
Marco lacks foot speed and aggressiveness. Defense is an afterthought. And he hasn't dived to the floor once this year. That's not a guy that I especially want on my team.
Good players just play. They find way to contribute regardless of circumstance. And at some point a slump is not a slump....it's who you are. If Seth had the same minutes as Marco this year he would have done more with them. Hungrier player. Feistier defender. And more creative scorer. Only lacks the mostly worthless pedigree.
I agree Marco has looked better as a starter but he's doesn't give even the faintest resemblance of a guy I am comfortable with as a rotational player. I will take the potential of Ben over the "veteran savvy" and championship pedigree" of Marco 8 days a week.
Marco is on the block by the way.
Last point on Marco is that his TS% is 50.9%. Take out his years with the Spurs and his TS% over his career is about 53%. It is not getting much better than what you see. He is shooting 39% now. The real Marco is about a 41% shooter. This upside you are waiting for is not going to amount to much and he will give all away on the other end of the floor.
Marco to me is like Marcus Thornton. But I actually like Marcus better because he had some grit to him and a bulldog mentality. Marco is a pussycat which is another way of saying he doesn't help you win.
PLEASE DUMP THIS GUY FOR A BAG OF CHIPS VLADE!!!!
Yes, and now we return to the simple indisputable fact that he was a major rotation player on a championship caliber team within the last year. In fact even a guy who bailed them out at a key moment with his shooting. A little factoid strongly suggesting that it may be us misusing a championship level asset, rather than said asset suddenly forgetting how to play.
The two guys are asking out because they want greater opportunities. No real tip of the iceberg thing.
Now whether either guy actually deserves more opportunities and whether any other team will actually give them to them, I do not know. If you're not getting it done for us, there are only so many stops further down the line.
Now whether either guy actually deserves more opportunities and whether any other team will actually give them to them, I do not know. If you're not getting it done for us, there are only so many stops further down the line.
Last edited:
Ben's had enough time on his third year.
Our coach no matter what people think is unlikely to change much, or his use of Ben.
Fact of the matter he's got 1 year left on his deal, then we have to match if we want to keep him.
To me considering everything the past few years, and Karl here now, we've got to consider moving him. Nothing's going to change this year when it comes to Ben.
Our coach no matter what people think is unlikely to change much, or his use of Ben.
Fact of the matter he's got 1 year left on his deal, then we have to match if we want to keep him.
To me considering everything the past few years, and Karl here now, we've got to consider moving him. Nothing's going to change this year when it comes to Ben.
And if Marco Belinelli was nobody before he hit the Spurs, that would be one thing.
On the contrary all the Spurs did was INTELLIGENTLY fit his well established skill set into their scheme.
This are Marco's career scoring numbers per 36:
14.2
15.2
15.1
15.4
14.3
13.4
16.3
14.7
15.1
These are Marco career 3pt% numbers:
.390
.397
.380
.414
.377
.357
.430
.374
.299 <-- us
Now people may want to run around screaming about how Marco sucks and all the rest, but when you have 8 years of evidence it rather trumps 3 months. There is neither age nor injury to explain it. Marco has played for 6 teams, its not that his productivity was limited to one team or one system.
We are the aberration. This year. This system. His previous worst year was with Thibs 4 years ago, and yet it does not compare.
On the contrary all the Spurs did was INTELLIGENTLY fit his well established skill set into their scheme.
This are Marco's career scoring numbers per 36:
14.2
15.2
15.1
15.4
14.3
13.4
16.3
14.7
15.1
These are Marco career 3pt% numbers:
.390
.397
.380
.414
.377
.357
.430
.374
.299 <-- us
Now people may want to run around screaming about how Marco sucks and all the rest, but when you have 8 years of evidence it rather trumps 3 months. There is neither age nor injury to explain it. Marco has played for 6 teams, its not that his productivity was limited to one team or one system.
We are the aberration. This year. This system. His previous worst year was with Thibs 4 years ago, and yet it does not compare.
Ben's been in three systems in three years without much sign of improvement. So yes, COULD it be? Sure. but there's no more evidence of it being than there is for any drafted kid who does not pan out. It could always be somebody else's fault. Or gremlins. Gremlins are nasty too.
If my only evidence for Marco was this year, or worse yet, he played like this for three straight years...yeah no.
If my only evidence for Marco was this year, or worse yet, he played like this for three straight years...yeah no.
It probably has, just like it probably has for many of our previous and current players. There is one thing worse than having a bad system and that is having no system which is what we have. We have had numerous coaches with numerous systems and numerous players to go with it. With that many changes in that short a period of time nothing can be molded properly. You can have a team full of talented players, but if some of them were brought in for system #1, some others brought in for system #2, the rest brought in for system #3, and now we have changed to system #4 everything obviously gets all messed up. This is what we have.
There is a reason that this team performed best under Malone, although I do think that was a bit of an aberration. Malone set up a system where isolation players like Thomas, Gay, and Cousins could thrive. It was also a much slower pace where they could play half court basketball on both ends of the court. Not a lot of forced 3-pointers that resulted in long rebounds and easy transition baskets. Not quick shots early in the shot clock that also resulted in a transition game. Not a lot of back and forth running which tired our players out, this is not an effort team, we are not built to run.
This team is still full of players which fit different systems in my opinion, I just think that if we have to pick a system a slow one would fit the highest percentage of our players. This is what makes the Spurs so good, they have one system with a defined role at each position. Each role has essential needs and things that can be overlooked, they find players who fit each spot. Some of these players may have several weaknesses, but it doesn't matter as long as they have the needed skills and those weaknesses don't stand out.
There is a reason that this team performed best under Malone, although I do think that was a bit of an aberration. Malone set up a system where isolation players like Thomas, Gay, and Cousins could thrive. It was also a much slower pace where they could play half court basketball on both ends of the court. Not a lot of forced 3-pointers that resulted in long rebounds and easy transition baskets. Not quick shots early in the shot clock that also resulted in a transition game. Not a lot of back and forth running which tired our players out, this is not an effort team, we are not built to run.
This team is still full of players which fit different systems in my opinion, I just think that if we have to pick a system a slow one would fit the highest percentage of our players. This is what makes the Spurs so good, they have one system with a defined role at each position. Each role has essential needs and things that can be overlooked, they find players who fit each spot. Some of these players may have several weaknesses, but it doesn't matter as long as they have the needed skills and those weaknesses don't stand out.
This wouldn't seem to be supported by the last 20 years or so. In fact, in that time frame we've had I believe one truly major free agent signing (of a player who was not already on the team) - and that was Vlade Divac. We also signed Bobby Jackson as a free agent. So that's two from the glory years. In the current era, Rondo's one year deal is working out OK while Koufos and Belinelli are somewhat mixed bags. And before that, what were the big free agent moves that we made? Nothing seems to move the needle in my memory. Given that Rondo is on a one-year deal and we're struggling to stay over .400, I don't think we can yet call any of our acquisitions this year "wins". We may have two free agency "wins" in the last two decades, and both of those are over 15 years old.
But the draft, on the other hand, got us Corliss, Peja, J-Will, Hedo, Gerald, Martin, and Cousins along with more debatable pieces like Tyreke, IT, and WCS. Now, we didn't always keep those guys, but most of the time when we didn't we at least traded them for guys that helped. I think it's safe to say that at least the first seven I listed there are equivalent "wins" to the signing of BJax in free agency, and the last three are debatable or TBD - still, maybe 10 "wins" in the draft in the last two decades.
Some of our biggest wins have happened in the trade market, to be honest. Off the top of my head, we traded for Richmond, Webber, Bibby, Christie, Miller, Artest, and Gay, and while we gave up assets (including several of the picks listed previously) I think it's clear that all of those trades were winners (though some might argue with the Peja/Artest trade) and they all definitely got us key components of our team.
Free agency has probably been the weakest of the three player-acquisition routes for the Kings in the last two decades.
But the draft, on the other hand, got us Corliss, Peja, J-Will, Hedo, Gerald, Martin, and Cousins along with more debatable pieces like Tyreke, IT, and WCS. Now, we didn't always keep those guys, but most of the time when we didn't we at least traded them for guys that helped. I think it's safe to say that at least the first seven I listed there are equivalent "wins" to the signing of BJax in free agency, and the last three are debatable or TBD - still, maybe 10 "wins" in the draft in the last two decades.
Some of our biggest wins have happened in the trade market, to be honest. Off the top of my head, we traded for Richmond, Webber, Bibby, Christie, Miller, Artest, and Gay, and while we gave up assets (including several of the picks listed previously) I think it's clear that all of those trades were winners (though some might argue with the Peja/Artest trade) and they all definitely got us key components of our team.
Free agency has probably been the weakest of the three player-acquisition routes for the Kings in the last two decades.
Gerald Wallace is a horrible example. Not only did he leave college before he was ready to play in the NBA, he came to a title contending team. That's precisely why the Kings left him exposed to the expansion draft. He was still a ways away from being good enough to help them.
Kevin Martin was a finished product when he left Sacramento. In no way did he "definitely improve" playing elsewhere. He's still the same player he was here.
Furthermore, you're wrong about draft picks not working out here, especially when you use Geoff Petrie era picks as your example. During the Petrie era, the Kings were generally adept at finding good players and developing them. It's been the past 4-5 years where they've made some major misses in the draft. More so the PDA era. The Kings did pretty well as recent as 2009 and 2010. And it looks like they could be back on track with Vlade's selection of WCS this past Summer.
Kevin Martin was a finished product when he left Sacramento. In no way did he "definitely improve" playing elsewhere. He's still the same player he was here.
Furthermore, you're wrong about draft picks not working out here, especially when you use Geoff Petrie era picks as your example. During the Petrie era, the Kings were generally adept at finding good players and developing them. It's been the past 4-5 years where they've made some major misses in the draft. More so the PDA era. The Kings did pretty well as recent as 2009 and 2010. And it looks like they could be back on track with Vlade's selection of WCS this past Summer.
Agreed, but that was covered by my "past 4-5 years" comment. Petrie was still the GM when the team drafted Tyreke, DeMarcus, Jimmer and Robinson. However, I think it was pretty evident that those draft selections were largely being influenced by the Maloofs. 2 of the 4 turned out good, though. Although I do believe that Petrie would have selected Steph Curry over Tyreke had he been fully in charge. Curry exhibited the exact skills he always coveted and opted for most -- shooting, passing, BBIQ, etc. And he certainly wouldn't have taken Thomas Robinson.
Regardless, most of the Petrie era resulted in good draft selections. He also found many mid-late 1st round and 2nd round gems. Michael "Animal" Smith, Tyus Edney, Peja Stojakovic, Jerome James, Hedo Turkoglu, Gerald Wallace, Kevin Martin, Francisco Garcia, Omri Casspi, Hassan Whiteside and Isaiah Thomas.
Regardless, most of the Petrie era resulted in good draft selections. He also found many mid-late 1st round and 2nd round gems. Michael "Animal" Smith, Tyus Edney, Peja Stojakovic, Jerome James, Hedo Turkoglu, Gerald Wallace, Kevin Martin, Francisco Garcia, Omri Casspi, Hassan Whiteside and Isaiah Thomas.
Nope those 2 were the Petrie moves. It was the Jimmer one that was more the Maloofs. Petrie was worried he was going to lose JT in free agency that's why he went with a big instead of Lillard. Tyreke was Petrie too Curry wasn't even close to the player he became. Remember Tyreke dominated all the guards in one on one during workouts. Too bad the game is 5 on 5.
But how can you possibly know that? We do know that the Maloofs began to interfere around the time of the Tyreke draft. Remember Gavin's ridiculous "it's changing" speech?
I disagree. Again, I repeat what I mentioned above about the Maloofs being all over Tyreke's jock and the passionate "it's changing" speech. I think THEY were overly impressed with his workouts. And while Tyreke certainly wasn't a bad pick and is a good player when healthy, I believe the Maloofs lobbied and possibly demanded that Geoff draft him.
You say Curry wasn't close to becoming the player he now is, but you forget that he was still damn good. He averaged something like 28pp and 6.5 apg at Davidson and showed off his shooting and passing abilities during his workouts. Tyreke may have dominated the workouts in terms of getting to the basket against all of the PG's, but Curry was still the embodiment of everything Geoff Petrie always looked for in his draft picks and player acquisitions. He was certainly more Mike Bibby and Peja-like than Tyreke.
Unless someone can produce a direct quote from Geoff Petrie (post-Maloofs) that states unequivocally that Tyreke was his guy, I refuse to believe it. I still stand by the idea that 2009 was the first year that the Maloofs really started to interfere with Geoff doing his job. And it continued until they departed. Geoff's track history supports that belief.
I disagree. Again, I repeat what I mentioned above about the Maloofs being all over Tyreke's jock and the passionate "it's changing" speech. I think THEY were overly impressed with his workouts. And while Tyreke certainly wasn't a bad pick and is a good player when healthy, I believe the Maloofs lobbied and possibly demanded that Geoff draft him.
You say Curry wasn't close to becoming the player he now is, but you forget that he was still damn good. He averaged something like 28pp and 6.5 apg at Davidson and showed off his shooting and passing abilities during his workouts. Tyreke may have dominated the workouts in terms of getting to the basket against all of the PG's, but Curry was still the embodiment of everything Geoff Petrie always looked for in his draft picks and player acquisitions. He was certainly more Mike Bibby and Peja-like than Tyreke.
Unless someone can produce a direct quote from Geoff Petrie (post-Maloofs) that states unequivocally that Tyreke was his guy, I refuse to believe it. I still stand by the idea that 2009 was the first year that the Maloofs really started to interfere with Geoff doing his job. And it continued until they departed. Geoff's track history supports that belief.
You know that's funny, because I remember thinking the same thing at the time. I never thought Curry would be this good, of course, but he definitely reminded me of "playoff Mike Bibby." Picking Curry would have been a classic Petrie move.
That said...
We all know Petrie never made statements like that. You're asking for an impossible standard and apparently are not interested in actual debate.
Petrie had a very good run, but fell off quite a bit toward the end. To what extent one can blame the Maloofs, we will never know. But I find that blaming them 100% is an unsatisfying cop out, much like some continue to think PDA is out there continuing to leak things about the Kings. I guess we all need our bogeymen.
Edit to add: I know for a fact Petrie remained old fashioned/stuck in his ways through the end. I had the opportunity to see him speak in a smaller group, and while it was during the lockout and he couldn't name players specifically, he seemed effusive in his praise of the newly acquired ball handling swingman (aka John Salmons) and pooh-poohed the idea that the d-league would be anything useful.
That said...
We all know Petrie never made statements like that. You're asking for an impossible standard and apparently are not interested in actual debate.
Petrie had a very good run, but fell off quite a bit toward the end. To what extent one can blame the Maloofs, we will never know. But I find that blaming them 100% is an unsatisfying cop out, much like some continue to think PDA is out there continuing to leak things about the Kings. I guess we all need our bogeymen.
Edit to add: I know for a fact Petrie remained old fashioned/stuck in his ways through the end. I had the opportunity to see him speak in a smaller group, and while it was during the lockout and he couldn't name players specifically, he seemed effusive in his praise of the newly acquired ball handling swingman (aka John Salmons) and pooh-poohed the idea that the d-league would be anything useful.
3 and Dness of our main players:
you can compare here
http://nyloncalculus.com/2016/02/17/charting-3-and-d-ness/
you can compare here
http://nyloncalculus.com/2016/02/17/charting-3-and-d-ness/
3 and Dness of our main players:
you can compare here
http://nyloncalculus.com/2016/02/17/charting-3-and-d-ness/
you can compare here
http://nyloncalculus.com/2016/02/17/charting-3-and-d-ness/
You don't want to be in that bottom left quadrant unless you have some other elite skill. I know you're supposed to let shooters shoot their way out of a slump, but Marco is really killing us out there...
I have always considered DBPM to be garbage. I use bball-ref all the time, but some of their pet statistics and default ranking mechanisms largely suck.
That said, outside of Rondo it doesn't look too far off really. Even in a normal year you would expect Bels to just move upward on the Y axis, not the X. Vlume really should be taken account of somehow though. If one guy shoots 20-50 from three point land, and another guy shoots 70-200 I'm not really sure the first guy is more of a "3" factor than the second.
That said, outside of Rondo it doesn't look too far off really. Even in a normal year you would expect Bels to just move upward on the Y axis, not the X. Vlume really should be taken account of somehow though. If one guy shoots 20-50 from three point land, and another guy shoots 70-200 I'm not really sure the first guy is more of a "3" factor than the second.
Last edited: