RealGM

Nonetheless, Kings coach Reggie Theus will roll out his eighth starting lineup tomorrow night. The most notable difference will be the absence of forward Mikki Moore, who will come off the bench and be replaced by Spencer Hawes. And while Kings shooting guard Kevin Martin will make his official return after his left ankle injury, he will not start. The lineup will be Beno Udrih at the point, Bobby Jackson at shooting guard, Francisco Garcia at small forward, Hawes and center Brad Miller. Swingman John Salmons (thigh strain) will be a gametime decision.

Theus went out of his way to make it clear that the decision had nothing to do with what Moore was not doing and everything to do with what he expects him to do coming off the bench. He highlighted all the little things he values in Moore's game. What's more, he discussed the reality that so many fans - and perhaps even the team's own front office - have nights when they would much rather see the team's young talent than the veteran big man. Ironically, Hawes will get the start after playing a combined 41 minutes the last two games (and nine through three quarters of the Jazz game).

"Anytime there's a charge being taken, 90 percent of the time it's Mikki Moore taking it," Theus said after today's practice. "He does all the little things, and those things matter. People talk about defense. The fans talk about defense, but then they want the guy who's a defensive guy to be out of the game.
"I look at several different things. I look at not only who's starting, but which combinations are best coming off the bench. I look at the fact that Spence has a tendency to get into early foul trouble. Is he better off getting those fouls late in the first half or early in the first half?...He's also got to learn how to not get those fouls."

SacKingZZZ wrote:Haha, it's funny how last year I said Hawes at PF was our best option in theory if we play a high post system and it caught so much flack, I guess a year or so of wasted time was enough.

I just hope if and when we nlose it isn't because "Spencer isn't a PF." Spencer's a PF damn it!!!

mitchweber wrote:

SacKingZZZ wrote:Haha, it's funny how last year I said Hawes at PF was our best option in theory if we play a high post system and it caught so much flack, I guess a year or so of wasted time was enough.

Whoa whoa whoa...you caught flack for implying that it could be a realistically competitive lineup moving forward. It may improve the team, but the fact remains that a Spencer/Brad frontline isn't ultimately going to lead this team to anything competitive. Many of the people arguing against agreed that it would be fine as a temporary option, but that looking to really make that the team competitive due to this frontcourt would be a lost cause.

And it's not about wasting time. Spencer has been the better player so far this year (more consistently than Jason), so he is rightfully getting the starting nod.

I just hope if and when we nlose it isn't because "Spencer isn't a PF." Spencer's a PF damn it!!!

I never understood why you were so gung ho about this. The most identifiable difference between the two positions is size. Spencer has more so PF size. But if you want to look at the positions' conventions, PFs typically have more of a face-up game. Spencer hasn't shown too much of a face-up game (in the way of taking people off the dribble). He has shown glimpses of a great post-up game, which is a trait more typically linked to centers. But if you're not looking at that stuff, the more common thing is size. Spencer's size is closer to that of a center's.

SacKingZZZ wrote:[qu
He started to do a little bit of that in the last game, and he does have a strong face up game. There are plenty of PF's that don't drive to the basket. I'd bet there are actually very few true PF's that use the drive with repetitive effectiveness. And he has glimpses of a great "finesse" post game. C's are typically bangers.

And the crux of my saying Spencer would probably be a better PF for us is that if we utilize a high post motion offense we can basically run the same kind of plays for Martin that we did Peja. Difference is now I think we have an even "truer" PF in Thompson that will eventually be able to do the same thing.

Although I would say that Spencer can easily play both spots with differing but equal effectiveness.

deNIEd wrote:Would it make any difference at all, if Hawes and Thompson both mastered PF and C and we just continuously switched the two? I'm trying to think if that would actually be any sort of an advantage.

mitchweber wrote:

SacKingZZZ wrote:[qu
He started to do a little bit of that in the last game, and he does have a strong face up game. There are plenty of PF's that don't drive to the basket. I'd bet there are actually very few true PF's that use the drive with repetitive effectiveness. And he has glimpses of a great "finesse" post game. C's are typically bangers.

And the crux of my saying Spencer would probably be a better PF for us is that if we utilize a high post motion offense we can basically run the same kind of plays for Martin that we did Peja. Difference is now I think we have an even "truer" PF in Thompson that will eventually be able to do the same thing.

Although I would say that Spencer can easily play both spots with differing but equal effectiveness.

I don't think it's really an important argument, because it's all just about conventions anyway. But the conventional PF is much more like Jason than Spencer. A conventional PF does drive to the basket. Of course not all do, but that's what characterizes the position, just like a PG is mostly characterized by playmaking and a SG by scoring. But that can all be switched around, so offensively, it doesn't really matter. But I would like to see Spencer play with his back to the basket--which is what a center is mostly characterized as offensively. It doesn't really matter the style of post play--Hakeem is an example of a center that had mostly a finesse game in the post and was a master with it.

The only place where positions really matter is defensively because that's the only definitive way of deciding it. I'd personally be much more comfortable with Spencer guarding centers and Jason guarding PFs in the future, generally speaking.

He's also the example of a guy that really did fluctuate between the two spots more than a few times. I don't really think there are too many defined positions anymore. If you are running a strict kind of offense I guess your role dictates position. Then there are others that say whatever position you defend is your position. I think it's all kind of a grey area nowadays.

SacKingZZZ wrote: Spencer's a PF damn it!!!

Cruel_Ruin wrote:
Yeah, you can say that they are just names. BUT, as Hawes develops, I'd like to see him become a full-time post player rather than one who just posts the 6'9 stubby guys of the league. I want to see him one day be able to post up the Duncans, KGs, Howards, and Odens of the NBA. He's clearly our most talented post player, yes even more talented than JT. He's just a natural, with terrific passing instincts, a soft touch, and ambidextrous finishing ability. Hopefully the three point bombing will end soon fo rhim.

As for JT, I'd like to see him perfect a face up game much like Webber's. Right now he's a bit out of control, but the best thing he brings to the table is his insane footspeed and first step for being a 6'11 guy. He has the passing instincts and the ballhandling ability to truly be special from there. His post game is nice, but highly predictable and with no left hand. Who knows if he'll ever develop that left hand.

SacKingZZZ wrote:

deNIEd wrote:Would it make any difference at all, if Hawes and Thompson both mastered PF and C and we just continuously switched the two? I'm trying to think if that would actually be any sort of an advantage.

Depends on what your defined role of a player is. If you think a C is a guy that bangs down low, blocks shots, and rebounds, and a PF utilizes a face up game, then both may be able to do those things. Like I've said about Brad Miller, in terms of the way he plays he's really a PF playing out of position at C. I think both Hawes and Thompson have the tools to play either inside or out.

deNIEd wrote:

SacKingZZZ wrote:

deNIEd wrote:Would it make any difference at all, if Hawes and Thompson both mastered PF and C and we just continuously switched the two? I'm trying to think if that would actually be any sort of an advantage.

Depends on what your defined role of a player is. If you think a C is a guy that bangs down low, blocks shots, and rebounds, and a PF utilizes a face up game, then both may be able to do those things. Like I've said about Brad Miller, in terms of the way he plays he's really a PF playing out of position at C. I think both Hawes and Thompson have the tools to play either inside or out.

It would take one heck of a coach and a some extremely smart players, buy what I meant was, suppose Thompson and Hawes both develop into a PF or C. Throughout a game, you just have the two switch interchangeably, Hawes PF now, 3 minutes later, Thompson is now PF and Hawes at C, just to take familarity away from the defense. One moment you are guarding in the block the next year at the top of the paint.