Up-tempo worked for us tonight

#1
Hi everyone.

I hate to be the one to break this unanimous chorus,
but whoever says that tonight our guys turned their back on the up-tempo bull*** and went back to Malone's good old ways IS SIMPLY WRONG AND MISLEADING...

As I can easily show (see below) - tonight was the absolute embodyment of up-tempo.
Kings' game pace was NEVER that high (At least this season).

The blessed twist in the plot, though, was some tough D for a change (And an OKC bad shooting night).

So - whether we like it or not - it might be claimed that what we all saw tonight was the very style of play that PDA was preaching for. The one that we (myself included) were so loud against...
:confused:

Look at the Pace measure in the Kings' advanced stats:
(Pace = The number of possessions per 48 minutes for a team)

  • In the first 24 games (under Malone) our pace was 95.70
See stats. (Pace is one before last)
  • The tempo indeed went up in the next 10 games (the awfully bad stretch after Malone was fired), averaging 99.36
See stats

And what about tonight? Was the team back to the slower pace we started the season with, or in line with the new (3.0?) quicker pace?

  • Well, tonight's game had a freakishly high pace of 107.72!
See stats

Surprised? I'm not.
I watched the game last night, and I can't believe anyone could have missed that, in the simple eye test -
we ran very fast, and took our shots VERY early whenever we had a chance to (In most cases TOO early for my taste, I admit).

At those times when the OKC defense was already too set and heavy to get a quick easy bucket - we dropped the ball to DMC or Rudy or Landry to post it up and get the defenders in foul trouble (or get blocked, sometimes...)

Now, it's not my favorite kind of BBall, but together with strong D - at least it looks like a plan,
and it worked perfectly tonight!

JUST SAYING... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
#3
"I think it's all B.S. Defense wins in the NBA." - Michael Malone

Today, we didn't win because of our offense, fast-paced or not because inb4 people arguing against it.

We certainly didn't win in the past because of our offense; it was our defense. But if you are insinuating that we need to care about the Michael Malone firing less and appreciate PDA more, that is baseless: Michael Malone was a dedicated coach that would surely improve but already had the trust of the team, while the front office didn't see that.
 
#4
Thanks for posting that. I was curious.

I think what made it feel like Malone ball, if not Malone pace, was repeatedly giving the ball to Boogie down low and letting him get their whole team in foul trouble. That along with, and vastly more important than pace, was defense. And okc missing just everything and turning the ball over. That naturally increased the pace due to breakouts. 24 turnovers, 32.6% shooting.

A borderline career worst game by Westbrook didn't hurt either.

After a ten game hangover, they went back to what had worked under Malone defensively. Pace certainly wasn't the key factor, nor can last night be used (although it will) as some sort of justification for the firing. There's absolutely no reason they couldn't have done this with Malone as the coach ten games ago.
 
#6
Actually think there was both. Definitely a focus on defense, but they also looked to push the pace after OKC turnovers and misses, looking to take advantage of that defense, in ways they didn't before. In one particularly memorable sequence, I remmeber Ben took it essntially coast to coast--a welcoming development, considering his seeming inability to create off the dribble that we had seen in the past.
 
#7
Hi everyone.

I hate to be the one to break this unanimous chorus,
but whoever says that tonight our guys turned their back on the up-tempo bull*** and went back to Malone's good old ways IS SIMPLY WRONG AND MISLEADING...

As I can easily show (see below) - tonight was the absolute embodyment of up-tempo.
Kings' game pace was NEVER that high (At least this season).

The blessed twist in the plot, though, was some tough D for a change (And an OKC bad shooting night).

So - whether we like it or not - it might be claimed that what we all saw tonight was the very style of play that PDA was preaching for. The one that we (myself included) were so loud against...
:confused:

Look at the Pace measure in the Kings' advanced stats:
(Pace = The number of possessions per 48 minutes for a team)

  • In the first 24 games (under Malone) our pace was 95.70
See stats. (Pace is one before last)
  • The tempo indeed went up in the next 10 games (the awfully bad stretch after Malone was fired), averaging 99.36
See stats

And what about tonight? Was the team back to the slower pace we started the season with, or in line with the new (3.0?) quicker pace?

  • Well, tonight's game had a freakishly high pace of 107.72!
See stats

Surprised? I'm not.
I watched the game last night, and I can't believe anyone could have missed that, in the simple eye test -
we ran very fast, and took our shots VERY early whenever we had a chance to (In most cases TOO early for my taste, I admit).

At those times when the OKC defense was already too set and heavy to get a quick easy bucket - we dropped the ball to DMC or Rudy or Landry to post it up and get the defenders in foul trouble (or get blocked, sometimes...)

Now, it's not my favorite kind of BBall, but together with strong D - at least it looks like a plan,
and it worked perfectly tonight!

JUST SAYING... :rolleyes:
I'm curious as to how much of the game you saw. Did you see the sequence of about 3 or 4 turnovers by both teams due to full court passes until (IIRC) Collison lobbed it up to Gay for a dunk? How does that figure into the pace calculations?
As Chubbs noted, the 24 turnovers will lead to easy buckets (26 points off turnovers.) If we scored 23 fast break points, how much does that relate to our "increased pace?"

The plan, was definitely "strong D leading to easy baskets, followed by (perhaps initiated by) bringing the ball in down low." Save the eyeball roll for another time.
 
#8
"I think it's all B.S. Defense wins in the NBA." - Michael Malone

Today, we didn't win because of our offense, fast-paced or not because inb4 people arguing against it.

We certainly didn't win in the past because of our offense; it was our defense. But if you are insinuating that we need to care about the Michael Malone firing less and appreciate PDA more, that is baseless: Michael Malone was a dedicated coach that would surely improve but already had the trust of the team, while the front office didn't see that.
I'm not insinuating anything. I'm telling it as it is.
This thread is not about PDA or Malone at all.
I thought firing Malone was a very bad move (mainly because of DMC).

I just didn't like the talk about last night being "back to our roots" or something.
The guys fought last night. They tried harder on D and on the boards. (even without Casspi, who does that every time he is on the floor...)
I loved that.
I think that's our DNA as a team.
I know that Malone preached for that kind of D.

But we can't mess up the facts and talk about being back to the old pace.

This was a new, much faster, pace, combined with the good old scrappy D.

As a combo, this IS new (hopefully improved as well).
 
#10
I'm not insinuating anything. I'm telling it as it is.
This thread is not about PDA or Malone at all.
I thought firing Malone was a very bad move (mainly because of DMC).

I just didn't like the talk about last night being "back to our roots" or something.
The guys fought last night. They tried harder on D and on the boards. (even without Casspi, who does that every time he is on the floor...)
I loved that.
I think that's our DNA as a team.
I know that Malone preached for that kind of D.

But we can't mess up the facts and talk about being back to the old pace.

This was a new, much faster, pace, combined with the good old scrappy D.

As a combo, this IS new (hopefully improved as well).
And what we are telling you, is the reason for the pace was the turnovers and extremely poor shooting by okc.

My eye test disagrees with your eye test. The numbers say the pace was faster but my eyes saw the team from the first 15 games of the season.

Every thread is about Malone and PDA. Don't be absurd and act innocent.
 
#11
At least we stepped up defensively and this shows that our Coach, FO and players still think that Defense is important.
Our pick&roll defense was the complete opposite from the last 10 games, DMC was finally stepping up again on the defensive end, challenging shots, drawing charges. Everyone was locked it and showed that we can still win and that our new playstyle is not taking away from DMC.
Still there are plenty of weaknesses to adress. Ben and Nik are still non factors on the offensive end, cause they don't get enough shots. Rudy is still playing too much ISO ball and the pick&roll chemistry between Rudy and DMC is just horrible.
But hey - I take the win and try to stay optimistic.
 
#12
As mentioned prior to this post, turnovers will automatically increase pace - so it's a variable that must be accounted for. I just don't think there is enough "data points" to thoroughly articulate your main points. I did some half-assed stats digging and took the slowest paced NBA team (Miami Heat, 91-ish) and took a gander at their game vs the 76ers (11-01-14), where the 76ers had 24 TOs. The Heat's pace increased by 11%, roughly the same amount the Kings' pace increased vs the Thunder.

The problem is prior to Malone getting fired, we had hope of a playoff-contending team... a team that would be competitive throughout the season. Whether or not that playoff aspiration was sustainable, PDA trampled that hope, instead of allowing it to naturally occur.
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#13
what I saw more of is running caused by the defense and not just running on made baskets....players were shooting when they were open and Darren joined the crowd in becoming more offensively engaged and taking the load of our two big scorers.
 
#14
what I saw more of is running caused by the defense and not just running on made baskets....players were shooting when they were open and Darren joined the crowd in becoming more offensively engaged and taking the load of our two big scorers.
What I saw was DMC locking in again, running the floor and staying active on D. That was the main difference between this game and the previous under Corbin.
 
#15
The defense last night was satisfactory. Lets face it, OKC just missed a ton of wide open looks. If people think we went back to Malone style defense, that wasn't the case. It was a fluke game.

When the other team misses a ton of jump shots and has a bunch of turnovers, naturally the offensive pace of the other team is going to be higher.
 
#16
The defense last night was satisfactory. Lets face it, OKC just missed a ton of wide open looks. If people think we went back to Malone style defense, that wasn't the case. It was a fluke game.

When the other team misses a ton of jump shots and has a bunch of turnovers, naturally the offensive pace of the other team is going to be higher.
You know, each time we played under Malone it was "[insert team] just missed a ton of wide open looks." How long before we:
1. maybe acknowledge why they missed the wide open looks, and
2. maybe acknowledge that defense is why they missed those looks

I don't have much time right now, or I'd get into 1., but suffice to say that these "open looks" were a little different than under the previous 10 games.
 
#17
Hi everyone.

I hate to be the one to break this unanimous chorus,
but whoever says that tonight our guys turned their back on the up-tempo bull*** and went back to Malone's good old ways IS SIMPLY WRONG AND MISLEADING...

As I can easily show (see below) - tonight was the absolute embodyment of up-tempo.
Kings' game pace was NEVER that high (At least this season).

The blessed twist in the plot, though, was some tough D for a change (And an OKC bad shooting night).

So - whether we like it or not - it might be claimed that what we all saw tonight was the very style of play that PDA was preaching for. The one that we (myself included) were so loud against...
:confused:

Look at the Pace measure in the Kings' advanced stats:
(Pace = The number of possessions per 48 minutes for a team)

  • In the first 24 games (under Malone) our pace was 95.70
See stats. (Pace is one before last)
  • The tempo indeed went up in the next 10 games (the awfully bad stretch after Malone was fired), averaging 99.36
See stats

And what about tonight? Was the team back to the slower pace we started the season with, or in line with the new (3.0?) quicker pace?

  • Well, tonight's game had a freakishly high pace of 107.72!
See stats

Surprised? I'm not.
I watched the game last night, and I can't believe anyone could have missed that, in the simple eye test -
we ran very fast, and took our shots VERY early whenever we had a chance to (In most cases TOO early for my taste, I admit).

At those times when the OKC defense was already too set and heavy to get a quick easy bucket - we dropped the ball to DMC or Rudy or Landry to post it up and get the defenders in foul trouble (or get blocked, sometimes...)

Now, it's not my favorite kind of BBall, but together with strong D - at least it looks like a plan,
and it worked perfectly tonight!

JUST SAYING... :rolleyes:
The biggest question is WHY did the Kings have a freakishly high pace? And more importantly, was that the reason they won?

The first thing to acknowledge is that the high pace was contributed to by more than simply the Kings running more.

First and foremost, the teams both shot very poorly. 39.1% for the kings (but a huge 52.6% from three 18% above their season average) and 32.% for OKC including 30% from three. The Thunder had 60 misses in the game which is reflected in the fact that the Kings were more than 10 rebounds over their season average. And of course each offensive rebound is a new possession. The Kings were 4 offensive boards over their average which is four possessions right there. Think of the play where Rudy missed his shot, got his own rebound, missed again, tipped it and missed it, and finally JT was fouled trying to tip it in. That's four possessions instead of one and had nothing to do with pace. The reality is that the pace of any game simply goes up when shooting percentage goes down because you aren't pulling the ball out of the basket and attacking a defense that has time to setup. In short, terrible shooting creates transition opportunities. And last night featured some awful shooting.

The Thunder also turned the ball over 24 times, nearly 10 over their team average and almost double the Kings average for opponent turnovers as they are second to last in the league in that category. Just as with missed shots, turnovers create transition opportunities. And finally, the Thunder blocked a ridiculous 13 shots. And every one of them that the Kings recovered meant an extra possession.

Were the Kings pushing the ball more than they did under Malone? Yep. Was there an obvious focus on quick outlet passes and transition baskets? Yep. But can we say that pace was a major factor in this Kings win? I wouldn't go that far. After all, OKC outscored the Kings in fastbreak points 29-23. And the Kings nearly were 8.5 points above their average in fast break points but they also allowed OKC to be 16.3 points above theirs. Lastly, the Kings fastbreak efficiency was lower than their season average (which has been league leading all season and has actually dipped post Malone) and the Thunder's was well over double their season average. Conclusion - the Kings ran more but not as effectively, while simultaneously allowing their opponent to run more often AND more effectively. This is the same trend I've seen since Corbin took over - the Kings are trying to run more and encouraging opponents to run more and usually suffering because of it.

I'd say Russell Westbrook going 3-19 (0-5 from three) and turning the ball over 7 times was the biggest factor and I don't see how that can be correlated with the pace of the Kings. For that matter, having Anthony Morrow go 3-12 (and 1-6 from three) and Dion Waiters go 1-9 (and 0-3 from three) was huge for the Kings as well.

I'll take the win but I think the Thunder blew this game more than the Kings won it. And where the Kings DID succeed was in playing good halfcourt defense, being the more physical and aggressive team. I find it hard to say the faster pace actually benefitted the Kings. Sure, some OKC turnovers could be attributed to it and also some poor/quick shots. But OKC actually scored more fastbreak points so I find it hard to point conclusively one way or the other.

Two additional interesting (to me anyway) side notes - The Kings shot less than 2% better than the Thunder on 2Pt shots (35.6% vs 33.8%) and with the rebounding and assist numbers being pretty close I'd say the big differences in this game were (in order) three point shooting, turnovers, Boogie getting fouls on Thunder bigs (and with a slew of non-calls too) and free throw shooting.

The other interesting point is that even in a 21 point win only ONE bench player had a positive +/- and that was Landry. Dwill was -7 and Stauskas was -8. The bench still very much needs an upgrade.

Links:
http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=400578824
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAC/2015.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/OKC/2015.html
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/fastbreak-points-per-game
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/opponent-fastbreak-points-per-game'
http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/fastbreak-efficiency
 
Last edited:

rainmaker

Hall of Famer
#18
What the OP is neglecting to mention(and I appreciate the effort put into this thread) is that increased pace can be a result of two different scenarios.

1) The intent to race up and down and take quick shots early in the clock, cutting down on the time of possession, leading to an increased number of possessions per game.

2) Defense leading to more turnovers, more runouts, more quick uncontested shots(know commonly as fastbreak/transition opportunities) which also leads to an increased number of possessions due to a TO and fastbreak usually taking only a few secs.

The latter is what happened last night. The evidence of that beyond our eyes telling us we muddled up the game with a more defensive and physical game plan is OKC's season-high 24 TOs. They were sloppy and threw the ball all over the place. Some was on them just not being sharp, some was on us making them uncomfortable with our focus on defense. Those season-high 24 TOs led to a number of quick, transition opportunities for us, jacking up the "pace". But everyone watching saw that when OKC did not TO the ball, we took our time playing through Cuz in the halfcourt. That Cuz had 23 FGA and 11 FTA, almost all in the halfcourt also shows we weren't racing up and down aside from opportunities off OKC TOs, created by our defense and their sloppiness.

It clearly wasn't a case of emulating a team like Den and going after up and down basketball but rather focusing on defense which led to quick transition opportunities. We had a number of them due to forcing 24 TOs. This is actually the difference between our golden era team and Den/GS incarnations. Our golden era team got transition opportunities based off defense and creating TOs, rather than racing up and down the court every time we took the ball out under our basket.

Also not a reason to fire Malone. It's not an accident our best game since his firing was the game in which everyone watching could tell we buckled down on defense and got back to our physical style. It happened to lead to more break outs but if OKC doesn't TO the rock 24 times, which most teams won't despite that defensive intensity, the game would still have looked quite similar with the "pace" being a decent amount lower.

Edit to add: PDA said in his interview the other day that we were actually playing too fast, yet the 5 games leading up to this saw a pace of
102
98
103
93
100
so technically this faulty "pace" stat would show we were playing far too fast last night for PDA's liking, yet obviously it wasn't the case. The actual tempo of the game as everyone saw was slower and based more off defensive intensity. We just had that "pace" stat jacked up due to OKC having a season-high in TOs and shooting only 32%, both due to our defense.
 
Last edited:
#19
Winning a game after this string of losses is your proof that the pacing works? I'd need to see more samples for this to be significant, although winning yesterday was certainly a nice change of pace for us. Kings looked like they played with a lot of effort.

I'm still worried about Boogie out there. He was a beast but he looks like old Boogie. Screaming for fouls, forcing the ball, getting T'd up. There were a couple of plays where you could tell his was visibly upset when Rudy held the ball.

All that being said a W is a W so I'll take it!
 
#20
It clearly wasn't a case of emulating a team like Den and going after up and down basketball but rather focusing on defense which led to quick transition opportunities. We had a number of them due to forcing 24 TOs. This is actually the difference between our golden era team and Den/GS incarnations. Our golden era team got transition opportunities based off defense and creating TOs, rather than racing up and down the court every time we took the ball out under our basket.
And basically the thought process, that PDA would like to emulate Denver or GS was always an assumption of this board. Or did is misread some of those comments?
But now we assume, that Corbin and the players rejected the playstyle PDA wants them to play and got back to the way Malone was preaching right?
Because it really can't be the case, that PDA just didn't want this team to play run and gun, 4vs5, junkball right?

Sorry about cherrypicking your post here to make my point, but I'm stunned by the negativity around here atm.
 
#21
And basically the thought process, that PDA would like to emulate Denver or GS was always an assumption of this board. Or did is misread some of those comments?
But now we assume, that Corbin and the players rejected the playstyle PDA wants them to play and got back to the way Malone was preaching right?
Because it really can't be the case, that PDA just didn't want this team to play run and gun, 4vs5, junkball right?

Sorry about cherrypicking your post here to make my point, but I'm stunned by the negativity around here atm.
D'Alessandro did say flat out that while he considered him a great basketball mind that he didn't want the Kings to run like Paul Westhead's teams. That said, there's an obvious disconnect for me when the guy that's hired to coach (and teach) your D-League affiliate is running an offense that is a direct descendent from Westhead's run-and-gun principles. I think that's the difficulty for a lot of Kings fans. There's words that contradict actions and vice versa from this front office.
 
#22
You're also only proving that the Kings won with pace, but not because of pace. Teams can win with pace -- look at the Warriors. But teams also lose with pace -- look at the 76ers. The Kings won with pace, not because of pace. The deciding factor in this game was not the pace: it was defense.
 
#23
Hi everyone.

I hate to be the one to break this unanimous chorus,
but whoever says that tonight our guys turned their back on the up-tempo bull*** and went back to Malone's good old ways IS SIMPLY WRONG AND MISLEADING...

As I can easily show (see below) - tonight was the absolute embodyment of up-tempo.
Kings' game pace was NEVER that high (At least this season).

The blessed twist in the plot, though, was some tough D for a change (And an OKC bad shooting night).

So - whether we like it or not - it might be claimed that what we all saw tonight was the very style of play that PDA was preaching for. The one that we (myself included) were so loud against...
:confused:

Look at the Pace measure in the Kings' advanced stats:
(Pace = The number of possessions per 48 minutes for a team)

  • In the first 24 games (under Malone) our pace was 95.70
See stats. (Pace is one before last)
  • The tempo indeed went up in the next 10 games (the awfully bad stretch after Malone was fired), averaging 99.36
See stats

And what about tonight? Was the team back to the slower pace we started the season with, or in line with the new (3.0?) quicker pace?

  • Well, tonight's game had a freakishly high pace of 107.72!
See stats

Surprised? I'm not.
I watched the game last night, and I can't believe anyone could have missed that, in the simple eye test -
we ran very fast, and took our shots VERY early whenever we had a chance to (In most cases TOO early for my taste, I admit).

At those times when the OKC defense was already too set and heavy to get a quick easy bucket - we dropped the ball to DMC or Rudy or Landry to post it up and get the defenders in foul trouble (or get blocked, sometimes...)

Now, it's not my favorite kind of BBall, but together with strong D - at least it looks like a plan,
and it worked perfectly tonight!

JUST SAYING... :rolleyes:
I'm just curios: if pace= The number of possessions per 48 minutes for a team, and our team played today exactly 48 minutes- how could the number of possesions be 107.72?? Isn't it either 107 or 108? or did I get something wrong? :confused:
 
#24
D'Alessandro did say flat out that while he considered him a great basketball mind that he didn't want the Kings to run like Paul Westhead's teams. That said, there's an obvious disconnect for me when the guy that's hired to coach (and teach) your D-League affiliate is running an offense that is a direct descendent from Westhead's run-and-gun principles. I think that's the difficulty for a lot of Kings fans. There's words that contradict actions and vice versa from this front office.
And as long as this offense our D-League affiliate is running doesn't translate into our NBA offensive schemes - where is the point?
Maybe Vivek is running the D-League to his own personal amusement and wants to try out crazy ideas on a basketball court, where it doesn't matter much? Ok one can argue if this is beneficial to player development, but the thesis, that because our D-League team is playing junkball, the plans are to establish the same kind of offense in the NBA is not very convincing.
 
#25
D'Alessandro did say flat out that while he considered him a great basketball mind that he didn't want the Kings to run like Paul Westhead's teams. That said, there's an obvious disconnect for me when the guy that's hired to coach (and teach) your D-League affiliate is running an offense that is a direct descendent from Westhead's run-and-gun principles. I think that's the difficulty for a lot of Kings fans. There's words that contradict actions and vice versa from this front office.
“Action expresses priorities.”
Mahatma Gandhi
 
#27
And as long as this offense our D-League affiliate is running doesn't translate into our NBA offensive schemes - where is the point?
Maybe Vivek is running the D-League to his own personal amusement and wants to try out crazy ideas on a basketball court, where it doesn't matter much? Ok one can argue if this is beneficial to player development, but the thesis, that because our D-League team is playing junkball, the plans are to establish the same kind of offense in the NBA is not very convincing.
And if you find a diamond in the rough on your D-League team, he comes up to the big club already familiar with the system and better equipped to contribute. So at worst what the Kings are doing is setting up a lab for wacky ideas that will be then tried on the NBA level and at best it's just a very ineffective way to run the D-League team. I honestly don't know which but it is yet another example of why the Spurs are the Spurs and the Kings are the Kings.

And I also don't know whether hiring Arsenault was Vivek's idea or Pete's. That's why I started a separate thread on this topic.
 
Last edited:
#28
I'm just curios: if pace= The number of possessions per 48 minutes for a team, and our team played today exactly 48 minutes- how could the number of possesions be 107.72?? Isn't it either 107 or 108? or did I get something wrong? :confused:
Yeah, it's confusing because possessions per game isn't a measurement but a statistic generated from a formula. Also complicated by the fact that I've never been able to confirm that different sources (say Hollinger and Basketball Reference) are using the same formula for possessions. Here's BR's formula:

Possessions formula: 0.5 * ((TmFGA + 0.4 * TmFTA - 1.07 * (TmORB / (TmORB + OppDRB)) * (TmFGA - TmFG) + TmTOV) + (OppFGA + 0.4 * OppFTA - 1.07 * (OppORB / (OppORB + TmDRB)) * (OppFGA - OppFG) + OppTOV)). This formula estimates possessions based on both the team's statistics and their opponent's statistics, then averages them to provide a more stable estimate.
Full info here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html
 
#29
I'm just curios: if pace= The number of possessions per 48 minutes for a team, and our team played today exactly 48 minutes- how could the number of possesions be 107.72?? Isn't it either 107 or 108? or did I get something wrong? :confused:
Good question.
Frankly, I have no idea... :)
 
#30
Yeah, it's confusing because possessions per game isn't a measurement but a statistic generated from a formula. Also complicated by the fact that I've never been able to confirm that different sources (say Hollinger and Basketball Reference) are using the same formula for possessions. Here's BR's formula:



Full info here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html
OK, good to know that there IS an explanation... :) as weird as it may be.