Revisiting the 9-6 debate (split from Merdiesel's question thread)

I've never really understood your obsession to mock those that liked Malone and though we were going to be a good team that year until Cousins got sick.

Is Malone an elite coach? No. Did he have Cousins' respect and have us playing the best basketball in a decade? Yes. Did he lead us to a 9-6 start while also having the 2nd toughest schedule at the time? Yes. I don't really understand where the sarcasm comes from to be honest...

And I don't think it's fair to compare Malone starting a season 9-6 (with the 2nd toughest schedule) to Karl going 9-6 at some point in the entire season. That's like saying Malone scored 2 points and Karl scored 2 points. However, Malone took 1 shot & Karl took 10. Malone's is more impressive. He went 9-6 in the first 15 games. He didn't go 9-6 in the 2nd or 3rd or 4th set of 15 games. He started off the bat with that record, and the logical assumption would be that he would have been able to maintain at a similar pace because what evidence is there to tell us otherwise? The schedule was only going to get easier and easier as the season progressed.

I'm aware that the team had a poor record under him the first year, but learning each other's tendencies, learning the coaches system so its second nature, and getting everyone to buy in takes time.

Your argument may have some legs to stand on if it were not for the strength of our schedule. I don't see how going 9-6 when we had the 2nd toughest schedule is considered "fluky." You're reaching here.

15 games is a small sample size. It's a legitimate argument. Unfortunately we don't know how it would have been over the long term.

The record, the strength of schedule, and the eye test all back my argument, so logically, one would come to the conclusion that there was a higher likelihood that the team would continue at a similar pace rather than spontaneously combust.

I watched each of those games. The Kings starters were playing really good defense for those 15 games. That is just the way it was. I am not aware of anyone making Malone out to be more than a good Coach especially on the defensive end. Kings Fans have not seen much of that and it was a breath of fresh air when we briefly had it. The Gerbil, Flattop and Vivek snuffed out that little brief flicker of defensive goodness. That is all

The Kings were playing good defense. That tends to stick. It is not like a streaky shooter who is shooting lights out but you know it will end. Defense tends to be consistent and get better.

One can hope. Still a small sample size is a valid point because we just don't know.

With such a small sample size especially at the beginning and f the season I could argue that the other teams were looking past us and played themselves out of the games. We surprised many. Too bad Vivek was so dumb.

What we do know is the team was playing great against very tough competition, and the record reflected that. Mocking those who supported Malone and who were excited about the team that year is just out of place when your only point is that it was 15 games.

The small sample size does have some validity but the reason for looking at sample sizes is to normalize many different factors, and one of the most important factors is who a team played. In our case, we had the 2nd toughest schedule thus with a larger sample size, one would infer that our winning percentage would actually be higher than it was in the 15 games.

Who was mocking you? I was happy w Malone. If you are talking about the science of statistics the small sample would lead to a projection with a very large error value. Thus I'd be reticent to make a strong finding one way or the other. But I would have loved to find out

I also remember complaints about Malone's rotations and poor use of time outs. He was far from perfect but the players liked and respected him which seemed very novel.

You could argue that water is not wet, yet......wet Defense is the same way......Defense.

No Malone had the team the prior year. Valid experience there. Did the team turn a corner maybe. I am not gonna stick my head inthe sand and ignore possibilities given 15 games.but you are welcome to. And No defense is not the same way. Every team goes through a slump. How would they have responded? A bit presumptuous to declare playoffs that season

The starters played amazing defense. Our offense was simplistic, but one thing that could be said for Malone on that end, was that he got guys to play to their strengths.

Cuz was a force in the paint. Rudy was taking smart shots and actually playing to his potential. DC was looking like a legit 3rd option.

He was grooming Ben Mac into a solid 3 and D shooting guard. And JT was a freaking stopper at PF.

Malone's rotations sucked, but that wasn't really his fault. The roster PDA gave him was bad. Malone really had them overachieving.

Then our idiot owner succumbed to the wormtongue of our idiot ex-gm and whatever the hell flattop was.

The rest is history.

Karl had his faults, but he got us the most wins in a long time and Gay/Cousins had arguably the best seasons in their career under him

Yep. I could actually watch Bennie Mac play back then without constantly cringing or reaching for the Alka-Seltzer.

I think you have to acknowledge that some of those wins, however, were in spite of George Karl and not because of him.

The OP has had a history of mocking those who liked and supported Malone (not saying you were).

Correct. Low sample comes with more room for error, but it's far more likely that the "error" was representing the Kings at only a 9-6 record. If more sample was collected, the likelihood that the "error" would be corrected. And the most likely outcome is that the record would have improved.

So you're right (in a sense) that the record could misrepresent the team. However, it's more likely that it's misrepresenting the Kings by providing a worse winning percentage than what it's capable of. Considering the strength of schedule, the winning percentage would likely go up if we were to gather more sample and have a strength of schedule that was middle of the pack.

All I'm saying is that the beginning of that season was very, very promising. I'm also acknowledging the low sample size, but if you had to guess how the record would "correct" once more sample was collected, it would make more sense that the winning percentage would increase rather than decrease. We won't know for sure, but I'll play the odds. And the odds are saying the record would have been similar or better as the season went on.

He also had the most talent this team has seen in a long time.

And Gay had his worst season as a King under Karl. Not sure what you're talking about...

I'm going to make this a Malone/Joerger comparison, because I find comparing Karl's tenure with Malone to be dumb as hell.

Ben played a role better under Malone that year. JT did a lot of work at the 4 that year as well. The bench was awful and what cost them a lot of games. I forget who started at the 5 in place of the ill Cousins that year, but they weren't effective.

In both that year and this year you see an idea that hadn't fully come together, but was starting to work. With Karl the idea was bad and it never involved any idea about defense. It was just a mantra of running that played better in the press than it did in the product on the floor.

I remember people panicking a bit during Cousins illness, and others looking to start some narrative. I thought the issue was pretty obvious at the time: The Backup PG and bench production. Sessions was awful on both sides of the court.

This year, I feel its mostly a roster fit issue as well. The defense needs to improve, but defense is struggling around the league. I think the correction from protect the rim to staying home on 3pt shooters may be corrected back. I know the Kings give up a lot of threes, but I am not sure how you deny that in this league. I see every coach concerned with denying threes, yet it not being effective, and it hurting at the rim and in rebounding. For all the talk of defending the three, league-wide 2pt % and 3pt % keeps climbing in spite of it.

Collison might have to move as he's not adjusting with more time than Ty had in the starting unit at this point. They've also changed the starting five quite a bit and it only improved briefly with Gay out. (Which begs other questions.)

I was thinking his numbers were best in 2016 but looks like 14-15...Karl was coach half of the year but probably didn't have much impact that year
Regular season
Year Team GP GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% RPG APG SPG BPG PPG
2006–07 Memphis 78 43 27.0 .422 .364 .727 4.5 1.3 .9 .9 10.8
2007–08 Memphis 81 81 37.0 .461 .346 .785 6.2 2.0 1.4 1.0 20.1
2008–09 Memphis 79 78 37.3 .453 .351 .767 5.5 1.7 1.2 .7 18.9
2009–10 Memphis 80 80 39.7 .466 .327 .752 5.9 1.9 1.5 .8 19.6
2010–11 Memphis 54 54 39.9 .471 .396 .805 6.2 2.8 1.7 1.1 19.8
2011–12 Memphis 65 65 37.3 .455 .312 .791 6.4 2.3 1.5 .8 19.0
2012–13 Memphis 42 42 36.7 .408 .310 .776 5.9 2.6 1.3 .7 17.2
2012–13 Toronto 33 32 34.7 .425 .336 .856 6.4 2.8 1.7 .7 19.5
2013–14 Toronto 18 18 35.5 .388 .373 .773 7.4 2.2 1.6 1.3 19.4
2013–14 Sacramento 55 55 34.4 .482 .312 .836 5.5 3.1 1.2 .6 20.1
2014–15 Sacramento 68 67 35.4 .455 .359 .858 5.9 3.7 1.0 .6 21.1
2015–16 Sacramento 70 70 34.0 .463 .344 .780 6.5 1.7 1.4 .7 17.2
Career 723 684 35.7 .452 .344 .793 5.9 2.3 1.3 .8 18.4

Karl is an excellent coach. Did he do a bad job with the Kings? yes he did. But the Kings job is very difficult

And that is what I regret the most. It was starting to work. We knew it, the players knew it and the front office knew it.

No, George Karl WAS an excellent coach. Those days are gone. That's the problem. We fans who supported hiring him were hoping there was still gas left in the tank. There was, but it wasn't the kind of gas we were looking for.

He also had the most talented roster in that span. Last year's team was more talented than this year's team as well. Not sure why the Karl fan club keeps overlooking that.

EDIT: Gay had the worst season in a long while under Karl.

I am not in the Karl Fan Club. I was just saying it wasn't like we were flat out awful. I expected more from him and was disappointed with the outcome as our head coach.

Any guess would create bias. The error should give from for guesses on both sides. Basically what it would say is you couldnt reasonably conclude anything with such a small sample. And that is why both arguements have merit despite bias.

They had a 60% winning percentage with the 2nd toughest schedule. Even if the level of their play dropped, they could still maintain that winning percentage due to the competition being worse. Taking these factors into account, you could probably make a fair assumption that the confidence interval would skew higher Maybe something like 57%-67% winning percentage range is realistic considering the early success, the defensive first approach (typically s recipe to win consistently in the NBA), and the strength of schedule.

Perhaps we are looking at the small sample size in the wrong way. What if we were 8-7 instead of 9-6? That's only one game that became a loss instead of a win.

Malone was a good coach because he had the Kings playing their best basketball in a LONG time. He was making B-Mac look like an extremely promising SG. He was helping Collison become a legit 3rd option. He was loyal to DeMarcus, and DeMarcus loved him. Coach was helping Omri revive his career. JT was looking like a NBA starter.

I hate the Kings for firing Malone. Who knows where we would be right now if we didn't fire him? Maybe we could've avoid wasting 1 entire year of Cousins and Rudy