The Teams of the Great Centers Study #3 -- The '94 Knicks

[Bricklayer]

Welcome to Study #3 of The Teams of the Great Centers series.

-- Study #1 may be found here: http://www.kingsfans.com/threads/the-teams-of-the-great-centers-study-1-the-96-spurs.60134/
-- Study #2 may be found here: http://www.kingsfans.com/threads/the-teams-of-the-great-centers-study-2-the-83-sixers.60173/

Study #3 takes a look at maybe the greatest of the Patrick Ewing/Pat Riley Knicks teams of the mid 90s to make what is becoming a common argument: we aren't necessarily short of star power or offense compared to the great center teams of the past, it is defense, roleplayers, and the "other guys" that need fixing for us to become a winner.

With Ewing you again find a HOF center putting up numbers in the same range that Boogie puts up for us (why I continue to say people don't realize what we've been watching these last few years), but this time the Rudy Gay #2 was not a SF, but rather a SG (John Starks). In these studies the #2 is almost always a wing though.


Study #3 -- The 1993-94 Knicks
Team Record: 57-25 (Lost in NBA Finals to Houston (Hakeem) 4-3)
Coach: Pat Riley
Pace: 24th of 27
Off Rating: 16th of 27
Def Rating: 1st of 27

A) Roster and Roles
C - Patrick Ewing (#1 option)
PF - Charles Oakley (defensive/rebounding stalwart)
SF - Charles Smith (the piece that never quite worked)
SG - John Starks (#2 option/shooter)
PG - Derek Harper/Doc Rivers/Greg Anthony (distributor/defender)

B) Team Structure
Because the relevant comparisons are Cousins/Ewing and Gay/Starks I'll eliminate the separate Frontcourt/Backcourt considerations here. These were the important features:

1) Ewing was the #1 of course, Starks the #2/wingman. The comparison to Cuz/Gay:

'94 Ewing: 37.6min 24.5pts (.551TS%) 11.2reb 2.3ast 1.1stl 2.7blk 3.3TO
'94 Starks: 34.9min 19.0pts (.516TS%) 3.1reb 5.9ast 1.6stl 0.1blk 3.1TO

'15 Cousins: 33.9min 23.7pts (.551TS%) 12.3reb 3.2ast 1.4stl 1.6blk 4.2TO
'15 RudGay: 35.5min 20.7pts (.552TS%) 5.9reb 3.7ast 1.0stl 0.6blk 2.7TO

One more time we see that the offensive gap between Cuz/Gay and many of the other great center/#2 pairings of the past is not large. Certainly not the explanation for how these teams were winning 60 games and playing in the Finals while we're bumbling towards sub-30 wins again.

2) Charles Oakley/Anthony Mason were the archetypes of a very consistent character in Great Center teams -- the defensive minded roleplaying PF wingman to the star center. The guy who has the center's back and takes a great defensive center and makes it a great defensive frontcourt. This character has been named Oakley, Mason, Green, Rambis, Jones, Haslem, Brown, Rodman, Grant, Davis, Horry, Thorpe and a variety of lesser names over the years. But he's almost always there, and in recent years when Stan Van Gundy and the Magic refused to follow the pattern, their team never got over the hump.

3) This is the 3rd team out of 3 looked at thus far featuring the same twin ballhandlers/initiators backcourt structure. Not just one backcourt guy capable of initiating the play, but two. In fact because of the PG mess that year for the Knicks -- Doc Rivers blew out a knee midseason and the Knicks scrambled to replace him by trading for Derek Harper, with Greg Anthony also in the platoon -- Starks actually led the team in assists.

4) A distinct trait and problem for the Riley era Knicks is they never did figure out what to do with the SF position. They wanted to play it big/strong and defensive and so had a succession of middling SF/PF types man the position who never quite fit or complimented the rest of the team except in joining in the physical intimidation. It meant the Knicks were always one ballhandler/shooter short. It also meant that their frontcourt was a wall of muscle. This year it was Charles Smith (the same one the Spurs used at PF a few years later) and ex-King Anthony Bonner.


C) Main Rotation Roster Comparison
C Patrick Ewing (Age: 31 Exp: 8yrs) = DeMarcus Cousins (Age: 24 Exp: 4yrs)
PF Charles Oakley (Age: 30 Exp: 8yrs) = Jason Thompson (Age: 28 Exp: 6yrs)
SF/PF Charles Smith (Age: 28 Exp: 5yrs) = Rudy Gay (Age: 28 Exp: 8yrs)
SG John Starks (Age: 28 Exp: 4yrs) = Ben McLemore (Age: 21 Exp: 1yr)
PG Derek Harper (Age: 32 Exp: 10yrs) = Darren Collison (Age: 27 Exp: 5yrs)
PF Anthony Mason (Age: 27 Exp: 4yrs) = Carl Landry (Age: 31 Exp: 7yrs)
PG Greg Anthony (Age: 26 Exp: 2yrs) = Sessions (Age:28) McCallum(Age:23) Miller (Age:38)
SG Rolando Blackman (Age: 34 Exp: 12yrs) = Omri Casspi (Age: 26 Exp: 5yrs)
SG Hubert Davis (Age: 23 Exp: 1yrs) = Nik Stauskas (Age: 21 Exp: R)
SF/PF Anthony Bonner (Age: 25 Exp: 3yrs) = Derrick Williams (Age: 23 Exp: 3yrs)

E) 1993-94 Knicks Main Rotation Stats
PEwing 79gms 37.6min 24.5pts (.496 .--- .765) 11.2reb 2.3ast 1.1stl 2.7blk 3.3TO
JStarks 54gms 34.9min 19.0pts (.420 .335 .754) 3.1reb 5.9ast 1.6stl 0.1blk 3.1TO
COakley 82gms 35.8min 11.8pts (.478 .--- .776) 11.8reb 2.7ast 1.3stl 0.2blk 2.4TO
HuDavis 56gms 23.8min 11.0pts (.471 .402 .825) 1.2reb 2.9ast 0.7stl 0.1blk 1.4TO
ChSmith 43gms 25.7min 10.4pts (.443 .--- .719) 3.8reb 1.2ast 0.6stl 1.0blk 1.5TO
DHarper 54gms 24.3min 8.6pts (.430 .367 .743) 1.6reb 4.4ast 1.5stl 0.1blk 1.5TO
Anthony 80gms 24.9min 7.9pts (.394 .300 .774) 2.4reb 4.6ast 1.4stl 0.2blk 1.6TO
Blackmn 55gms 17.6min 7.3pts (.436 .357 .906) 1.7reb 1.4ast 0.5stl 0.1blk 0.8TO
AMason 73gms 26.1min 7.2pts (.476 .--- .720) 5.8reb 2.1ast 0.4stl 0.1blk 1.5TO
ABonner 73gms 19.2min 5.1pts (.463 .--- .476) 4.7reb 1.2ast 1.0stl 0.2blk 1.2TO


Conclusion: So How Did They Win 57 While We'll Win Sub-30?
1) DEFENSE. DEFENSE! Do you hear me Vivek? D-E-F-E-N-S-E!!! Hmm..where have we heard this before? And yet of course these Knicks pursued defense as singlemindedly as any team in NBA history. EVERYBODY had to defend, from the stars right on down to the ballboys. Well..except for Hubert Davis, the designated kid/shooter/wuss on the team who was forced into bigger minutes this year because of injuries. They even eventually caused the NBA to make a rules change. These were the teams that made "handchecking" such a thing and such a weapon.

2) Paceliness...hah. Pat Riley laughs at your paceliness. Riley took a look at Ewing and Oakley, and he constructed a wildly different team from his Showtime Lakers. A team designed to maximize what these guys did well. This was walk it up, smashmouth basketball for 48 minutes, and the complete lack of pace fed into the smothering defense.

3) Pat Riley. Who sits atop my own personal list of GOAT coaches. He drove this team, and yet despite driving them hard had ferocious loyalty from his core players.

4) Toughness. An x factor impossible to overlook or quantify. But Riley was almost running a science experiment here. They didn't just play defense, they were physical intimidators almost to a man (again, sans Davis). He picked up guys out of grocery store checkout lines (Starks). He picked up guys from the Turkish leagues (Mason). He picked up Dallas's entire aging backcourt, played PFs at SF...anybody who would scrap and battle. Half our roster wouldn't even show up for the game if the '94 Knicks were next on the schedule.

5) Vet leadership. Not only did this team have Riley, its spiritual leaders were 30+yr old vets in Ewing/Oakley up front, and Harper/Blackman/Doc in back. With roleplayers largely matched to the stars, the team had one of the strongest personalities of any team in this study. Everybody knew what it meant to play Knicks ball, and they all stashed brass knuckles in their lockers.


Defense is a talent too, so its a bit of a misnomer to say that these Knicks weren't that much more "talented" than we are. But if you said that Cousins/Gay/Collison was as or more talented than Ewing/Starks/aging Harper...is that completely implausible? Maybe not. So one more time, its not our star power separating us from this team. Its the dirty work roleplayers, the defensive minded coach with his players' loyalty. The ferocious identity. Intangibles and identity issues that are hard to put a finger on, but which don't necessarily require some amazing luck in the draft or huge FA score to fix.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Well if you can find a modern day Oak...

 

[Padrino]

i'm really digging these studies. it's difficult to find apt comparisons between teams across generations, but i find it incredibly useful as a base for developing a strategy that seeks to build around demarcus cousins, rather than one that attempts to shoehorn cousins into a particular style of play. excellent work, brick.

 

[lawlman91]

Thanks for all the effort you put into these studies! It's very interesting to read!

 

[The_Jamal]

i'm really digging these studies. it's difficult to find apt comparisons between teams across generations, but i find it incredibly useful as a base for developing a strategy that seeks to build around demarcus cousins, rather than one that attempts to shoehorn cousins into a particular style of play. excellent work, brick.

This is the biggest problem I have with these studies, but they're fun to look at regardless. The other issue is that DeMarcus isn't near the defensive player that these all-time greats are, which would drastically change what we could do from a team composition aspect

Other than that, very cool

 

[Spike]

I'll buy it once McLemore dunks on Davis. Otherwise, your premise is pure sausage.

 

[ParniValjak]

I have to say Brick, these studies are FANTASTIC!

Keep them coming! Hopefully the idiots running the team learn something along the way!

 

[Kingster]

What was the effect of the 3-point shot on these old center-oriented teams?

 

[LPKingsFan]

This is the biggest problem I have with these studies, but they're fun to look at regardless. The other issue is that DeMarcus isn't near the defensive player that these all-time greats are, which would drastically change what we could do from a team composition aspect

Other than that, very cool

A year ago, I would have agreed, and the apparent need to pair DMC with a defensive anchor limited the relevance of these comparisons (I'd say in order to be called a great center, you should be a defensive anchor, but that's another debate). This year, however, we've seen that DMC is capable of being a defensive anchor. Maybe not a gaudy shotblocker, but he was still protecting the rim very well (the result is really what matters, not how you do it). I haven't checked to see if those numbers fell off post-meningitis and post-Malone, but we at least know he's capable of it, and that gives plenty of room for optimism as well as flexibility in roster construction.

What was the effect of the 3-point shot on these old center-oriented teams?

I'd imagine the zone defense and the hand check rules would be bigger factors, no? Spacing becomes more of a concern, and we saw how earlier this season the zone was the Kings' kryptonite even when things were otherwise rolling under Malone. Even then, this series has been a very interesting study.

 

[Kingster]

Good points about the zone defense and hand check changes, which along with the 3-point shot, make guard play relatively more important than center play these days as opposed to years gone by.

 

[IfAt1st]

I've always felt Patrick Ewing was WAY overrated and got a lot of favorable calls during his day that contributed to his stats.
I think Demarcus will easily be better than Ewing if he simply keeps at this pace and gets a real team of teammates surrounding him.

The Knicks that year were this close to cheating (the way they played defense), and they got away with it because it was New York and Defense became A Thing in the NBA.

Oakley is the biggest difference between the two teams in comparison.

 

[KingsFanGER]

Good points about the zone defense and hand check changes, which along with the 3-point shot, make guard play relatively more important than center play these days as opposed to years gone by.

You might add this stupid rule change, that the defense needs to give the shooter space to land - resulting in countless 4pt.-plays by Jamal Crawford and company by simply falling onto their backside every time they shoot a slightly contested three.
The NBA is trying hard to make the 3-point-shot difficult to guard.

 

[Tetsujin]

You might add this stupid rule change, that the defense needs to give the shooter space to land - resulting in countless 4pt.-plays by Jamal Crawford and company by simply falling onto their backside every time they shoot a slightly contested three.
The NBA is trying hard to make the 3-point-shot difficult to guard.

Yep. The league made a lot of noise about stopping the Reggie Miller leg kick move but has pretty much sat back and let the three pointer flop take its place.

 

[lawlman91]

You might add this stupid rule change, that the defense needs to give the shooter space to land - resulting in countless 4pt.-plays by Jamal Crawford and company by simply falling onto their backside every time they shoot a slightly contested three.
The NBA is trying hard to make the 3-point-shot difficult to guard.

Really?

I could understand why they would want to do that though, for culture and profit reasons.

 

[KingsFanGER]

Really?

I could understand why they would want to do that though, for culture and profit reasons.

Yes there is reasoning behind it. The NBA in the recent years was all about making the game faster, more spectacular and more about offense. The 3-pointer is one of the most spectacular basketball plays possible -combine it with a great ballhandler like Curry or Harden and you get the "oohs and aahs" from the crowd.
But this is alienating a lot of fans, that were following the NBA during the 90's and love all those hard working, tough teams like the Knicks. People of a certain age love memorizing the good old times and tend to stick to solutions, that worked for years regardless of new trends.
The rule changes mentioned here and the overall goal of the NBA to make the game as fast as possible, really rises question marks for me, if the slow paced, grind it out playstyle would work today, like it did in the 90's.
The NBA does everything to protect those tiny guards out there, while the big man doesn't get the same kind of treatment. I don't like it, but that's the way it goes.
Could the 94' Knicks compete with the 2015 Warriors under the contemporary rules of the NBA? I doubt it.

Sadly there are reasons for the trends in the NBA and we will most likely never see a team like the Knicks again.

 

[lawlman91]

Yes there is reasoning behind it. The NBA in the recent years was all about making the game faster, more spectacular and more about offense. The 3-pointer is one of the most spectacular basketball plays possible -combine it with a great ballhandler like Curry or Harden and you get the "oohs and aahs" from the crowd.
But this is alienating a lot of fans, that were following the NBA during the 90's and love all those hard working, tough teams like the Knicks. People of a certain age love memorizing the good old times and tend to stick to solutions, that worked for years regardless of new trends.
The rule changes mentioned here and the overall goal of the NBA to make the game as fast as possible, really rises question marks for me, if the slow paced, grind it out playstyle would work today, like it did in the 90's.
The NBA does everything to protect those tiny guards out there, while the big man doesn't get the same kind of treatment. I don't like it, but that's the way it goes.
Could the 94' Knicks compete with the 2015 Warriors under the contemporary rules of the NBA? I doubt it.

Sadly there are reasons for the trends in the NBA and we will most likely never see a team like the Knicks again.

I haven't watched the Memphis Grizzlies as much, but if you do watch them, would you say that they "grind it out" more than your typical NBA team does today? Anyone? If we could draw a conclusion about the Grizzles, that may contrast with the assertion that "grind it out" doesn't work today, or at least quell any "question marks" that you have about that style.

Also, my own opinion: if we saw that this "grind it out" style worked earlier for the Kings in the year, why not try it again until it fails? It seems reasonable to try something that has worked in the past before trying another style. You know, see how "grind it out" plays out. If it doesn't, try something else! But given that the past few games have given off a vibe of success, it would be strange to see that George Karl would attempt to implement slow basketball again. It would be smart to try it again, for experiment's sake (a relatively safe one), but unlikely.

If both fast pace and slow basketball prove to work, the Kings should use their diversity to their full potential in the search for a playoff appearance.

 

[KingsFanGER]

I haven't watched the Memphis Grizzlies as much, but if you do watch them, would you say that they "grind it out" more than your typical NBA team does today? Anyone? If we could draw a conclusion about the Grizzles, that may contrast with the assertion that "grind it out" doesn't work today, or at least quell any "question marks" that you have about that style.

Also, my own opinion: if we saw that this "grind it out" style worked earlier for the Kings in the year, why not try it again until it fails? It seems reasonable to try something that has worked in the past before trying another style. You know, see how "grind it out" plays out. If it doesn't, try something else! But given that the past few games have given off a vibe of success, it would be strange to see that George Karl would attempt to implement slow basketball again. It would be smart to try it again, for experiment's sake (a relatively safe one), but unlikely.

If both fast pace and slow basketball prove to work, the Kings should use their diversity to their full potential in the search for a playoff appearance.

I really like Memphis, cause they have an agressive leader in Tony Allen and a really skilled big guy in Gasol and therefore watched nearly every game over the recent years (but keep in mind, that I don't consider myself as some kind of basketball guru. So my "eye test" on the Grizzlies may be wrong). The Grizzlies were a "grind it out" team under Hollins in my opinion. Really relying on post game and great defense. I think they changed quite a bit under Joerger to a more perimeter oriented playstyle, moving a lot more, creating out of the pick&roll and going into the post play only if Conley and Gasol have problems setting up people.
But I know that some of the posters around here (Brick especially ) disagree with me.
For me it looks like the Grizzlies learned their lesson in the playoffs, when the Spurs totally dominated their post play in 2013, cause Zbo had problems finishing at the rim against Splitter and made since then some adjustments to the playstyle of many teams of the league. They pursued Green for quite some time, cause he gives them the length, scoring punch, spacing and athletic ability they lacked ever since Rudys departure.
Still the foundation of the Grizzlies is their team defense and therefore they are as close to a "grind it out"-team as it could be in todays NBA (maybe keep Utah in mind for next season with Gobert, Hayward and Favors). But for me they are nowhere close to teams like the '94 Knicks. Their offense is completely different. Especially their second unit, built around Green recently, runs a lot. And for example in the last game versus the Blazers even Randolph was beating guys like Aldridge, Lopez or Leonard by running the floor like an overweight deer.

Conclusion for me:
Does defense first still win in the NBA? Of course it does.
Does a low post offense still win in the NBA? I don't know and I'm not sure, if it's more efficient than a well executed offense built around pick&rolls.

And let me add some more. For the Kings, resembling the Grizzlies is as unrealistic as it is to resemble the Warriors. The only reason why the Grizzlies work like they do, is that both Big Guys need to be guarded at all times, cause they can play inside and outside. The reason why they are one of the best teams in the league is, that they have maybe the best perimeter defenders in the league with Tony Allen and Mike Conley.
To think we can do, what they do, cause DMC is better than Marc Gasol is not going to cut it.
If we want to follow the Memphis route, we better add a Top-10 PF and great perimeter defenders to our team. And given our assets this is about as realistic as adding Steph Curry to our roster.

We need to find our own way. And it starts with using DMC in a way, where he gives us the best out of every ability he has. Now i agree that a slow paced offense, with lots of post play was working in the beginning of the season. And I had a lot of fun watching it, like every true Kings-Fan. But unlike some of the posters around here, I don't see this kind of offense as a way to get the most out of Cousins. Cousins can dribble, has great floor vision, is more mobile than a lot of centers and really likes to play like some kind of SF/SG at times. Because we lack a second dominant big guy and floor spacing in general, putting him in the low post most of the time, will result in easy double and sometimes triple teams -we all have seen plenty of those during this season.
For me Karl's approach to give DMC full control of his game, is the right way. Right now he is playing a lot more in the Gasol-role than before and I like it.
I said it multiple times - our problem is not pace. It's defense and stupid decision making! There is nothing wrong with Dwill, Ben, Casspi or Rudy getting easy buckets in transition. There is nothing wrong with DMC running the floor hard at times.
And to me there is nothing wrong with DMC playing out of the high post or from the perimeter a lot more, cause this guy is our second best PG.
Of course you put him into the low post at times, if he has the matchup advantage, but don't force feed the ball into the post, just because that's the only offensive idea you have.

With Karl, much needed defensive adjustments, Cousins, Rudy, DC and finally some mobile, hard working defenders the Kings can win some games next season. If we can win in the PO like this remains to be seen. Given the fact that smashmouth basketball hasn't won for quite some time in the PO from my point of view, but fast playstyle, pick&roll, 3point-shooting and team defense has won a lot, I'm actually more optimistic than f.e. Bricklayer.

P.S.: Sorry for the lengthy response. As soon as the Grizzlies were mentioned things got a little bit out of hand.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Lots of good stuff in that post above. Watching the highlights last night, you see Boogie taking guys off the dribble and hitting moving teammates with brilliant passes. Is that more sustainable against good teams than forcing boogie down low into triple teams? I don't know, but it could be. It's not like you can't give it to Boogie to go to work in the post if the other looks aren't available.

 

[twslam07]

Lots of good stuff in that post above. Watching the highlights last night, you see Boogie taking guys off the dribble and hitting moving teammates with brilliant passes. Is that more sustainable against good teams than forcing boogie down low into triple teams? I don't know, but it could be. It's not like you can't give it to Boogie to go to work in the post if the other looks aren't available.

Why do people look at double/triple teaming as a bad thing? If that happens, you essentially have the upper hand on a defense if you pass out of it.

Would you rather have your center take people off the dribble and expose himself to guards and wings stripping him or would you rather have your center post-up, draw a double team, and create space for his teammates to operate? To me, having your center post-up seems like a much more conservative and easier way to play basketball since it's at a slower pace. You can make better decisions while still freeing up the rest of your teammates. If you have a player who has great ball security and decision making, driving the lane would probably be the better option, but again, for a 6'11 270 lbs center, the game becomes much easier when posting up.

Now as the remaining roster is finalized around Cousins, these opportunities he creates will turn out to be costly for opposing defenses which then might result in him seeing less double/triple teams. If you put a team of steady vets around Cousins who can knock down shots, you would have an efficient offense from an initial Cousins post-up. A cast of Gibson, Gay, Afflalo, and Collison would get the job done and then some.

 

[lawlman91]

I really like Memphis, cause they have an agressive leader in Tony Allen and a really skilled big guy in Gasol and therefore watched nearly every game over the recent years (but keep in mind, that I don't consider myself as some kind of basketball guru. So my "eye test" on the Grizzlies may be wrong). The Grizzlies were a "grind it out" team under Hollins in my opinion. Really relying on post game and great defense. I think they changed quite a bit under Joerger to a more perimeter oriented playstyle, moving a lot more, creating out of the pick&roll and going into the post play only if Conley and Gasol have problems setting up people.
But I know that some of the posters around here (Brick especially ) disagree with me.
For me it looks like the Grizzlies learned their lesson in the playoffs, when the Spurs totally dominated their post play in 2013, cause Zbo had problems finishing at the rim against Splitter and made since then some adjustments to the playstyle of many teams of the league. They pursued Green for quite some time, cause he gives them the length, scoring punch, spacing and athletic ability they lacked ever since Rudys departure.
Still the foundation of the Grizzlies is their team defense and therefore they are as close to a "grind it out"-team as it could be in todays NBA (maybe keep Utah in mind for next season with Gobert, Hayward and Favors). But for me they are nowhere close to teams like the '94 Knicks. Their offense is completely different. Especially their second unit, built around Green recently, runs a lot. And for example in the last game versus the Blazers even Randolph was beating guys like Aldridge, Lopez or Leonard by running the floor like an overweight deer.

Conclusion for me:
Does defense first still win in the NBA? Of course it does.
Does a low post offense still win in the NBA? I don't know and I'm not sure, if it's more efficient than a well executed offense built around pick&rolls.

And let me add some more. For the Kings, resembling the Grizzlies is as unrealistic as it is to resemble the Warriors. The only reason why the Grizzlies work like they do, is that both Big Guys need to be guarded at all times, cause they can play inside and outside. The reason why they are one of the best teams in the league is, that they have maybe the best perimeter defenders in the league with Tony Allen and Mike Conley.
To think we can do, what they do, cause DMC is better than Marc Gasol is not going to cut it.
If we want to follow the Memphis route, we better add a Top-10 PF and great perimeter defenders to our team. And given our assets this is about as realistic as adding Steph Curry to our roster.

We need to find our own way. And it starts with using DMC in a way, where he gives us the best out of every ability he has. Now i agree that a slow paced offense, with lots of post play was working in the beginning of the season. And I had a lot of fun watching it, like every true Kings-Fan. But unlike some of the posters around here, I don't see this kind of offense as a way to get the most out of Cousins. Cousins can dribble, has great floor vision, is more mobile than a lot of centers and really likes to play like some kind of SF/SG at times. Because we lack a second dominant big guy and floor spacing in general, putting him in the low post most of the time, will result in easy double and sometimes triple teams -we all have seen plenty of those during this season.
For me Karl's approach to give DMC full control of his game, is the right way. Right now he is playing a lot more in the Gasol-role than before and I like it.
I said it multiple times - our problem is not pace. It's defense and stupid decision making! There is nothing wrong with Dwill, Ben, Casspi or Rudy getting easy buckets in transition. There is nothing wrong with DMC running the floor hard at times.
And to me there is nothing wrong with DMC playing out of the high post or from the perimeter a lot more, cause this guy is our second best PG.
Of course you put him into the low post at times, if he has the matchup advantage, but don't force feed the ball into the post, just because that's the only offensive idea you have.

With Karl, much needed defensive adjustments, Cousins, Rudy, DC and finally some mobile, hard working defenders the Kings can win some games next season. If we can win in the PO like this remains to be seen. Given the fact that smashmouth basketball hasn't won for quite some time in the PO from my point of view, but fast playstyle, pick&roll, 3point-shooting and team defense has won a lot, I'm actually more optimistic than f.e. Bricklayer.

P.S.: Sorry for the lengthy response. As soon as the Grizzlies were mentioned things got a little bit out of hand.

I'm liking your attention to detail. Its good to see forum posters such as you, Brick, etc. talking about basketball more critically than "omg session sux lol" ... not saying I despise people that do that, but just that its personally preferable to see this type of content. Again thanks for the detailed response.