At this point, the remaining Kings fans are probably all thinking the same thing, but aren’t saying it because it sounds a little crazy. It’s the idea that the Sacramento Kings are actually playing better without their best player and leader, Kevin Martin. It sounds ludicrous, but the anecdotal evidence is mounting and the battle lines are forming. Time for another Great Debate.
For being such a great scorer, it is amazing to think that Kevin might actually hurt a team more than he helps. But before we dig too deeply, just how good of a scorer is the other K-Mart? To put it in perspective, Martin was scoring 30.0 points per game, after only Carmelo Anthony (30.2) and Kobe Bryant (30.1), prior to his wrist injury earlier this season. That’s pretty good company right there. Thus, Martin is clearly a high usage scorer with a usage percent of 29.1 percent, which would be good for 11th overall this season if he qualified for inclusion on the leader board.
But scoring and scoring efficiently are two different things all together. So what about K-Mart’s scoring efficiency? His effective field goal percentage is .500 percent (versus a league average .494 percent) and his true shooting percentage is .577 this season (versus a league average of .531 percent). So it is safe to say that Martin is a high usage scorer that also is above average in scoring efficiency. Definitely a pretty ideal combination for a team’s primary or secondary scoring option.
With that being said, how is it possible that a team could be better without Martin on the floor?
Theory One: The Kings are Better Without K-Mart
Those that believe the Kings are better without Martin on the floor will first point to the Kings’ record. The proof is in the pudding, they say. With Martin in uniform this season, the Kings are a paltry 1-4 (.200 win-loss percentage). With Kevin riding the pine this season, the Kings are 4-5 (.444 win-loss percentage). Granted, the Kings don’t have a winning record without Kevin but their win-loss percentage has improved noticeably in his absence. So it appears there is some evidence for the argument that the Kings might be better off without Martin in the lineup.
Beyond the Kings’ record, there are other metrics that give credence to Theory One. In looking at On/Off data from 82games for Martin, the case against K-Mart continues to build. With Martin on the floor, the Kings had an O-Rating of 106.6 and a D-Rating of 117.2, for a net of -10.6 points per 100 possessions. Ouch — not what you want if you are trying to win basketball games. With Martin firmly entrenched on the bench, Sacramento had an O-Rating of 110.6 and a D-Rating of 107.4, for a net of +3.2 points per 100 possessions. So to recap, the Kings have been worse both offensively (-4.0 points per 100 possessions) and defensively (+9.8 points allowed per 100 possessions) with Martin on the floor.
Most people who have watched Martin play would have probably conceded that he is a defensive liability but never would have thought him to be a liability on offense as well. If you take the Kings’ win-loss record and Martin’s On/Off data together, Theory One looks to be pretty convincing. But before you start demanding that the Maloofs trade K-Mart, take a look at the argument that says Kevin isn’t responsible.
Theory Two: K-Mart is Not the Problem
According to Theory Two, Martin being out of the lineup is not the cause for the King’s improved record but instead simply a correlation. Proponents of this theory will mention the names of two of Kevin’s teammates when presenting their case: Tyreke Evans and Beno Udrih. Each of these two players play a pivotal role in helping making the Kings better when Kevin Martin went down.
When picked fourth overall by the Kings in the 2009 NBA Draft, Evans was sold to the Sactown faithful as the point guard of the future. True to their word, the Kings started Evans at the one from the opening tip, allowing Martin and Evans to make up the Kings’ starting backcourt. This moved Udrih to the bench backing up the young and promising rookie. From the start, Evans numbers were pretty nice for a rookie and no one was complaining. But once Martin went down, Evans’ numbers really took off.
So what changed?
The significant change was Beno Udrih moving into the starting five, sliding Evans over to the two. And the numbers have shown that Evans is hands down much more effective playing the off guard. Examining 82games’ positional data for Evans, Evans’ production compared to his opponent counterpart’s production clearly illustrates the difference. Playing point, Evans has had a PER of 11.5 while his opponent counterpart has had a PER of 22.8 for a -11.3 net. Playing the two, Evans has had a PER of 25.2 while his opponent counterpart has had a PER of 15.0 for a net of +10.2. What a difference playing the correct position can make. Switching Evans from the one to the two has had a huge impact on Evans’ effectiveness on both the offensive and defensive ends of the floor. Pretty convincing stuff.
But there is more to the story. As mentioned earlier, Martin’s injury has opened up increased PT for Udrih and he has definitely risen to the challenge. For evidence, examine Udrih’s splits as a starter/reserve this season. Coming off the bench, Udrih has averaged 9.8 points on .484/.750 percent shooting, 1.5 threes, 1.5 rebounds, 3.0 assists, 0.8 steals, 0.3 blocks and 2.0 turnovers in 22.3 minutes per game. As a starter, Udrih has averaged 15.8 points on .509/.900 percent shooting, 1.1 threes, 2.6 rebounds, 4.6 assists, 0.8 steals, 0.1 blocks and 2.0 turnovers per game. As a starter, Udrih has played much more efficiently (both shooting and assist-to-turnover) and has been much better at than Evans at the point (as a reference, check out Beno’s positional data from 82games and notice that Udrih is a net positive).
According to Theory Two, Martin is not the problem. Instead, the problem was playing a shooting guard at the point and having an effective point guard wallow on the bench. With Martin out, Coach Paul Westphal tweaked his lineup with beneficial results.
Conclusion
Both theories have enough basis in fact to be believable. However, only one theory can be correct and it is to each person to make up their own mind. In my opinion, Kevin Martin is too good of a player for Theory One to be true. If he were a high volume, low efficiency scorer, it would be easier to give credence to Theory One. However, his efficient scoring alerts me to the fact that something else is probably to blame. Enter Theory Two, which stands to reason and is supported by factual evidence.
So where then does the blame lie?
One, as is usually the case, coaching is partially to blame. Granted it was only a few games, but Evans is clearly not a point guard but is instead a shooting guard. It took an injury to Kevin to make Coach Westphal realize this fact but I am sure he has gotten the memo after Evans has posted impressive line after impressive line. And two, the front office is culpable as well. The front office has the final say on who the Kings draft and they chose a player who plays the same position as their star player. They duped themselves into believing that Evans could be molded into playing an unnatural position. More often than not, attempts to change a player’s nature fails (see the Allen Iverson saga).
One thing is for sure, though. Kevin Martin is not the one to blame.
