I'm not a ststs guy but I did a quick tally and get our guys scoring 93 points per game w/o Patterson, McLemore, Hayes, McCallum, Fredette. I was surprised it came out that high. Of course you have to be a very good defensive team to win with an average of 93. Gives our guys something to work on starting tomorrow.
Can this group score enough?
- Thread starter pshn80
- Start date
We scored just fine when we were a 1 on 1 team last year. We have a PG now that will get the team involved so let's hope sharing = more points and higher fg%. I think we will be fine. We had players like MT underperform last year because of how the rotation was handled. We also had a lot of players not get involved because our PG was not sharing the ball no matter who it was.
Kings fans, always concerned about the wrong end of the court. 
But its an interesting question, a bit, just in this: for the first time in forever, the starting lineup at least threatens to have a more normal balance. 2 offensive weapons (Cousins, Thornton), 2 non-offensive roleplayers (Thompson, Mbah a Moute) and 1 semi-weapon facilitator (Vasquez). And if we aren't running and gunning, that suggests a more average offensive output than a huge one.
Off the bench its a whole bunch of gunning though, everybody who comes in is going to be looking to shoot as soon as they touch it, so you would figure between that and the likely SF/PF platoons, that we'll have a pretty high scoring bench. So maybe average starter scoring, upper echelon bench scoring, above average overall. So much will depend on Malone's offense and preferred pace though.
Assuming for argument's sake that Malone is a conventional coach, plays starters major minutes, features his stars/biggest weapons etc. you could go:
Cousins/THornton 40pts
Vasquez 14pts
Thompson/Mbah a Moute 16pts
------------------
70pts
Landry/Patterson 20pts
IT/McLemore 20pts
------------------------
and you come out with 110pts. Which isn't going to happen every night quite obviously, but hardly indicates lack of offense.
As to the whole "we have a pure PG now we'll score lots" argument, consider: Vasquez's team averaged 94.1pts/gm last season. We averaged 100.2. There are a ton of factors far more important.
But its an interesting question, a bit, just in this: for the first time in forever, the starting lineup at least threatens to have a more normal balance. 2 offensive weapons (Cousins, Thornton), 2 non-offensive roleplayers (Thompson, Mbah a Moute) and 1 semi-weapon facilitator (Vasquez). And if we aren't running and gunning, that suggests a more average offensive output than a huge one.
Off the bench its a whole bunch of gunning though, everybody who comes in is going to be looking to shoot as soon as they touch it, so you would figure between that and the likely SF/PF platoons, that we'll have a pretty high scoring bench. So maybe average starter scoring, upper echelon bench scoring, above average overall. So much will depend on Malone's offense and preferred pace though.
Assuming for argument's sake that Malone is a conventional coach, plays starters major minutes, features his stars/biggest weapons etc. you could go:
Cousins/THornton 40pts
Vasquez 14pts
Thompson/Mbah a Moute 16pts
------------------
70pts
Landry/Patterson 20pts
IT/McLemore 20pts
------------------------
and you come out with 110pts. Which isn't going to happen every night quite obviously, but hardly indicates lack of offense.
As to the whole "we have a pure PG now we'll score lots" argument, consider: Vasquez's team averaged 94.1pts/gm last season. We averaged 100.2. There are a ton of factors far more important.
I'd rather average 85 points a game with a +3 point differential than score 110 with a -5 differential, but I know I'm in the minority.
Scoring won't matter if we continue to show an aversion to stopping the other team from scoring. That said, we have plenty of players with a history of scoring points. With Evans gone, Thornton will likely pick up production from a PPG standpoint, leaving us relatively near last year's PPG potential.
Scoring won't matter if we continue to show an aversion to stopping the other team from scoring. That said, we have plenty of players with a history of scoring points. With Evans gone, Thornton will likely pick up production from a PPG standpoint, leaving us relatively near last year's PPG potential.
I've got your back in most instances and you know it. I'd like us to score more than 85 a game but if we hold teams to 82, I think we would suddenly hear the fandom catch on to the beauty of a team great at defense. Appreciating defense is an acquired taste but if a good defense leads to wins, bring it on.
We never will be in danger of having too little offense and I don't understand the concern. The problem with our offense is that it STILL isn't good enough to outscore the opponent.
We never will be in danger of having too little offense and I don't understand the concern. The problem with our offense is that it STILL isn't good enough to outscore the opponent.
Meh, I wasn't too worried about the specific numbers, because even scoring 110 a game with a +5 differential will get it done, but I think the point stands that we need to be on the + side for a change, rather than the - side. And boy, we haven't even been close for a long time. That said, I agree with your last sentence. I think that it all relates.
Sounds like a better question is "can our group change the scoing differential from last year's negative 4.9 to, say a negative 1?" Sounds like a big order for Coach Malone and the team.
It occurs to me that two factors are important before you can improve your defense - get in shape and hustle- then you can concentrate on learning technique and teamwork and applying it in a game. Very challenging situation for Malone and staff.
It occurs to me that two factors are important before you can improve your defense - get in shape and hustle- then you can concentrate on learning technique and teamwork and applying it in a game. Very challenging situation for Malone and staff.
Because I don't think people are paying attention...
Anyway, back to the point.
I think we're going to score fewer points. Actually, it's my hope that it happens. We have Cousins, who works best in the half court. We've added Vasquez, who likely wouldn't flourish in a transition game, and there's McLemore, who will need to be set up via screens/open spots on the floor. To me, that looks like a team that is starting to build towards a half-court set. Landry is such a player as well.
The only real runner I see on this team is IT. BMc is a finisher, and can do so, but if that's going to be his only skill then you're going to negate all that he supposedly brings, which is going to (hopefully) come out when we're running half-court sets.
We'll learn a lot about this team pretty quickly.
Anyway, back to the point.
I think we're going to score fewer points. Actually, it's my hope that it happens. We have Cousins, who works best in the half court. We've added Vasquez, who likely wouldn't flourish in a transition game, and there's McLemore, who will need to be set up via screens/open spots on the floor. To me, that looks like a team that is starting to build towards a half-court set. Landry is such a player as well.
The only real runner I see on this team is IT. BMc is a finisher, and can do so, but if that's going to be his only skill then you're going to negate all that he supposedly brings, which is going to (hopefully) come out when we're running half-court sets.
We'll learn a lot about this team pretty quickly.
Last edited:
