The ONE AND ONLY Luka Doncic discussion thread

[macadocious]

OK, I guess I'll go then....

Counting 25ppg/13rpg/3apg/1.2blk/.5stl

Slash .490/.350/.800

If we get that. We have an All Star PF/C. He might not ever be as good as Doncic appears to be, but that would make me forget (sorta) about this.

If he's 17/9/2/1 and .450/.300/.700 ....whooooo boy, it's gonna be another tough decade. Because that is good enough that we don't suck, but not good enough to propel to anything special.

 

[NME]

I'm not very active in this discussion, but I was easily one of the most upset fans when we passed on Doncic. Being the Kings fan I am, I rationalized and jumped on Board with Bagley. I actually really like Bagley. All that being said, from a pure statistical standpoint, what counting stats and slash line would Bagley need to achieve to say we didn't make a mistake? Team records aside.

I don't think it's really possible unless he develops as-yet-unseen aspects to his game. He could put up 25 and 14 and not come close. If he does that plus develops into an impact defensive player and/or learns to create for others, he can close the gap. Right now he is well below average at both. That's why it hurts even more to have him miss the beginning of the season and not be able to see if he makes some kind of surprising leap.

 

[SLAB]

For all the people who called me a whiner on draft day...

Are you watching this?? I was not overreacting. We screwed ourselves out of an all-time great. This could be multiple championships thrown away. This kid is supposed to be in a Kings jersey right now and we'd be the most exciting team in the league with a triple-headed Fox/Hield/Doncic monster. There won't be another player in the draft this good for 10 years.

1,000,000% this, Thank you.

 

[gunks]

OK, I guess I'll go then....

Counting 25ppg/13rpg/3apg/1.2blk/.5stl

Slash .490/.350/.800

If we get that. We have an All Star PF/C. He might not ever be as good as Doncic appears to be, but that would make me forget (sorta) about this.

If he's 17/9/2/1 and .450/.300/.700 ....whooooo boy, it's gonna be another tough decade. Because that is good enough that we don't suck, but not good enough to propel to anything special.

I think Bagley flashed some potential to put up those 25/13 numbers in his rookie season. He really did have some "wow" games.

Now we just gotta worry about him staying healthy/getting there/his dad not convincing him to become a Laker or some **** once he's good.

If you squint, you can see a future where passing on Luka works out for us, but it's a lot of variables, and in the meantime I'm going to continue to think Vlade is a friggin idiot.

 

[Gguod]

OK, I guess I'll go then....

Counting 25ppg/13rpg/3apg/1.2blk/.5stl

Slash .490/.350/.800

If we get that. We have an All Star PF/C. He might not ever be as good as Doncic appears to be, but that would make me forget (sorta) about this.

If he's 17/9/2/1 and .450/.300/.700 ....whooooo boy, it's gonna be another tough decade. Because that is good enough that we don't suck, but not good enough to propel to anything special.

Its not necessarily about counting stats. Its about the impact on the court and the value of his skillset/position/role. If his overall impact on the court is lower than Lukas plus the value his skillset/role/position is lower than Lukas, then it was a big miss.

At least personally during the draft I predicted that Bagley could pretty easily be a 20/10 guy in the Nba but he would still not be nearly as valuable as Luka. The whole argument then was that its hard to be a real difference maker if you arent truly a generational offensive big, you dont create offense for others AND you are a big man with defensive limitations. Historically thats been the case and looking at advanced metrics like RPM, RAPM and PIPM (Maybe BPM too) it largely confirms that.

Luka atm is 6th in the league in PIPM and 21st in BPM. To answer your question, when Bagleys imoact on the floor proves to be higher than for Luka, its time to stop feeling miserable about the pick. It looks extremely unlikely and until that happens I personally will feel very bad about the pick because it really should've been an obvious pick and it was extremely incompetent to screw it up. Doesnt mean that Bagley cant be a fine player with good box score stats but if pre draft you had all this knowledge and passed on Luka, that was inexcusable.

 

[The Effort Police]

For all the people who called me a whiner on draft day...

Are you watching this?? I was not overreacting. We screwed ourselves out of an all-time great. This could be multiple championships thrown away. This kid is supposed to be in a Kings jersey right now and we'd be the most exciting team in the league with a triple-headed Fox/Hield/Doncic monster. There won't be another player in the draft this good for 10 years.

On draft day, in his rookie year I was expecting something like 16/5/5 and this year to be something like Utah Gordon Hayward before he eventually turned into a superstar.

But whoops, looks like he's a generational talent.

How could anyone expect that people would have moved on by now? If he stayed within people's expectations pre-draft then I think this place would be much quieter. But that's not what happened now is it?

 

[Joshoua]

Luka Doncic is the only NBA player currently ranked in the top 10 in scoring (fourth, 29.5 ppg), rebounding (10th, 10.7) and assists (second, 9.3). The season is only a month old, but with the Mavs at 8-5, the 20-year-old is unquestionably on the short list of MVP candidates.


Walk on water I guess.

and look at there lineup only Porzingis is a reasonable starter on that team, head willing them to wins

 

[Joshoua]

I think Bagley flashed some potential to put up those 25/13 numbers in his rookie season. He really did have some "wow" games.

Now we just gotta worry about him staying healthy/getting there/his dad not convincing him to become a Laker or some **** once he's good.

If you squint, you can see a future where passing on Luka works out for us, but it's a lot of variables, and in the meantime I'm going to continue to think Vlade is a friggin idiot.

we’re teams game planning for him when he flashed 25/13 numbers that only like 2-3 players are doing right now. A lot of guys in here will be disappointed if y’all are expecting y’all of fame numbers from Bagley

 

[rosa u podne]

I'm not very active in this discussion, but I was easily one of the most upset fans when we passed on Doncic. Being the Kings fan I am, I rationalized and jumped on Board with Bagley. I actually really like Bagley. All that being said, from a pure statistical standpoint, what counting stats and slash line would Bagley need to achieve to say we didn't make a mistake? Team records aside.

While I think we should have drafted Doncic, I am still not sold on Doncic leading his team to a championship, because of the poor defense. Bagley right now plays bad defense too. However, as a better athlete, he has a better chance to become a good defender and be a contributor to championship run, not necessary as the primary piece.

 

[Joshoua]

While I think we should have drafted Doncic, I am still not sold on Doncic leading his team to a championship, because of the poor defense. Bagley right now plays bad defense too. However, as a better athlete, he has a better chance to become a good defender and be a contributor to championship run, not necessary as the primary piece.

the positions they play Bagley has no choice but to be a good defender for that to happen. And considering Luka looks like a 25-9-8 guy Bagley would need to be a DPOY to have close to his impact on the floor.

Also I don’t belive Luka is as bad on defense as some belive especially come crunch time and in the playoffs. At his size you can hide him

 

[gunks]

we’re teams game planning for him when he flashed 25/13 numbers that only like 2-3 players are doing right now. A lot of guys in here will be disappointed if y’all are expecting y’all of fame numbers from Bagley

I'm just hoping for damage control numbers after Vlade's big **** up.

I think Bagley can be unstoppable on offense, but I dunno if he's ever going to make teammates better or play defense at a level that won't render his numbers moot.

It's still way too soon to call anything though, at least where Bags is concerned.

 

[Joshoua]

I'm just hoping for damage control numbers after Vlade's big **** up.

I think Bagley can be unstoppable on offense, but I dunno if he's ever going to make teammates better or play defense at a level that won't render his numbers moot.

It's still way too soon to call anything though, at least where Bags is concerned.

that’s the thing look at AD he was dominate and on defense too but he didn’t make his teammates better. Well that and he’s made of glass, a wing greater is just more important

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Its not necessarily about counting stats. Its about the impact on the court and the value of his skillset/position/role. If his overall impact on the court is lower than Lukas plus the value his skillset/role/position is lower than Lukas, then it was a big miss.

This, then, begs the question: who gets to decide what the value of Bagley's skillset is? Because I would postulate that, if a player of Bagley's talent doesn't have an impact on the game, and he's not a total head case, then it's at least 75 percent coaching/management's fault, for not figuring out how to use him.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

that’s the thing look at AD he was dominate and on defense too but he didn’t make his teammates better. Well that and he’s made of glass, a wing greater is just more important

You can't get blood from a stone. You'd think that Kings Fans would know that, by now.

 

[Tetsujin]

You can't get blood from a stone. You'd think that Kings Fans would know that, by now.

Considering that the people in this specific thread have been watching (if they've actually had the opportunity to watch the games) Luka continually have to deal with bad teammates doing stupid things, you'd think they'd know this.

 

[jellyfish]

While I think we should have drafted Doncic, I am still not sold on Doncic leading his team to a championship, because of the poor defense. Bagley right now plays bad defense too. However, as a better athlete, he has a better chance to become a good defender and be a contributor to championship run, not necessary as the primary piece.

When he wants to play defense he actually can he know's angles and is stronger/bigger than 99% of PG/SG and has solid strength (will get stronger) for a SF. He's a bit like Harden in that regard who conserves his entire energy for offense but can D when he wants to. He's not a guy like Kanter/Love/Dwight Powell who no matter how hard they play D just flat out suck. His defense is not the concern imo, you can't play good defense when the ball is going through you and asking you to break down the D every single possession.

 

[Joshoua]

When he wants to play defense he actually can he know's angles and is stronger/bigger than 99% of PG/SG and has solid strength (will get stronger) for a SF. He's a bit like Harden in that regard who conserves his entire energy for offense but can D when he wants to. He's not a guy like Kanter/Love/Dwight Powell who no matter how hard they play D just flat out suck. His defense is not the concern imo, you can't play good defense when the ball is going through you and asking you to break down the D every single possession.

Just look at Kyrie in the finals vs GSW he played very good defense, and Luka is better given his size

 

[Gguod]

This, then, begs the question: who gets to decide what the value of Bagley's skillset is? Because I would postulate that, if a player of Bagley's talent doesn't have an impact on the game, and he's not a total head case, then it's at least 75 percent coaching/management's fault, for not figuring out how to use him.

To me the most valuable skill is a player creating efficent offense for himself and others. Players like that are usually all superstar, usually dominate all advanced metrics trying to quantify players impact on the floor and players that have that skillset are usually the most valuable players on good teams.

Coaches job is to put players in a position where they can utilize their skillset but you also cant fault a coach if a player cant create offense for others due to limited vision and/or handles.

To answer your question, its coaches job to get Bagley to make an impact but its not coaches fault if his impact isnt top level due to some limitations. I cant say "who" exactly decides the value of his skillset but you can form a pretty educated opinion about it with all the data, and eye test.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

To me the most valuable skill is a player creating efficent offense for himself and others.

That's fine, but why do you get to decide that?

Coaches job is to put players in a position where they can utilize their skillset but you also cant fault a coach if a player cant create offense for others due to limited vision and/or handles.

Is it known that Bagley can't create for others, or is it just known that he can't create in the way that a wing player can create, because those two statements aren't equal.

To answer your question, its coaches job to get Bagley to make an impact but its not coaches fault if his impact isnt top level due to some limitations. I cant say "who" exactly decides the value of his skillset but you can form a pretty educated opinion about it with all the data, and eye test.

I don't accept that. Provided, like I said before, that Bagley is not a headcase who is actively trying to hurt his team, I think that it's just a bunch of chickenbleep coaches, who have been scared out of actually trying to do their jobs, and have instead chosen to take the path of least resistance. Coaching is a lot easier, when you can just do it the same way that everybody else is doing it; you don't have to do as much work, when you have a LeBron, or a Harden, or an Irving... or a Doncic. Just give them the ball, and tell them to make something happen. It's lazy.

I bet if you gave Gregg Popovich or Erik Spoelstra or Mike Malone or Brad Stevens or Nick Nurse a player like Bagley, the could figure out how to get him to have "top level" impact.

 

[Gguod]

That's fine, but why do you get to decide that?

I dont decide that. I gave my argument on why I think that way:

Players like that are usually all superstar, usually dominate all advanced metrics trying to quantify players impact on the floor and players that have that skillset are usually the most valuable players on good teams.

Is it known that Bagley can't create for others, or is it just known that he can't create in the way that a wing player can create, because those two statements aren't equal.

He hasnt really done it at any level so far. Based on all the film we have on him I would personally guess that a)his vision and b)his ball handling ability doesnt suggest that he will be a guy that constantly creates effective offense for others. Also stats seem to back up the eye test on this one.

If he cant create like a guard or wing does, that lowers his impact offensively and imo thats a given one. If you are a high usage guy and you can create for others, it increases your value and if you cant, it decreases your value. Passing vision and ability to create for others is a relatively big part of your impact offensively. Doesnt mean you cant have impact without it but probably not top level impact.

I don't accept that. Provided, like I said before, that Bagley is not a headcase who is actively trying to hurt his team, I think that it's just a bunch of chickenbleep coaches, who have been scared out of actually trying to do their jobs, and have instead chosen to take the path of least resistance. Coaching is a lot easier, when you can just do it the same way that everybody else is doing it; you don't have to do as much work, when you have a LeBron, or a Harden, or an Irving... or a Doncic. Just give them the ball, and tell them to make something happen. It's lazy.

I bet if you gave Gregg Popovich or Erik Spoelstra or Mike Malone or Brad Stevens or Nick Nurse a player like Bagley, the could figure out how to get him to have "top level" impact.

Imo its fair to think that having a guy that can create for himself AND others is more valuable than guy that doesnt really create for others. You can be the best coach in the world and design a system where you can take a player that doesnt create for others and increase his impact. Still if you take that same coach and let him design a same type of wonderful system around a player that can create for others, it probably is more efficent offense since that great system puts him in great positions to read the defense when to score AND when to pass when defense rotates.

My thinking is that if we look at advanced metrics like RPM and such, the top of the list is dominated by players that create offense for themselves and others, bigs that are elite defenders and some wings that are elite team defenders and good shooters. There are very few bigs in there that have defensive limitations and for those that are there for example even Jokic had +2,69 DRPM last year.

If we look at ORPM, there are very few bigs at the top there. To me that indicates that bigs produce more elite value defensively and rarely elite value offensively because they rarely create for others.

If there are trends like this, there probably is a reason for it. At least thats my thinking. Its probably not easy to just stop being a chickencrap and creating a system where a player has top level impact even if he misses the qualities that usually allows someone to have top level impact. If it were that easy, there probably wouldnt be trends like this, at least not this big.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

He hasnt really done it at any level so far. Based on all the film we have on him I would personally guess that a)his vision and b)his ball handling ability doesnt suggest that he will be a guy that constantly creates effective offense for others. Also stats seem to back up the eye test on this one.

Has anyone asked him to? I mean, I know that players doing what their coach tells them is a revolutionary concept in 2019, but...

If he cant create like a guard or wing does, that lowers his impact offensively and imo thats a given one. If you are a high usage guy and you can create for others, it increases your value and if you cant, it decreases your value. Passing vision and ability to create for others is a relatively big part of your impact offensively. Doesnt mean you cant have impact without it but probably not top level impact.

The disconnect is rooted in your apparent thesis that "top level" impact means one thing, and one thing only. I reject that premise.

Imo its fair to think that having a guy that can create for himself AND others is more valuable than guy that doesnt really create for others. You can be the best coach in the world and design a system where you can take a player that doesnt create for others and increase his impact. Still if you take that same coach and let him design a same type of wonderful system around a player that can create for others, it probably is more efficent offense since that great system puts him in great positions to read the defense when to score AND when to pass when defense rotates.

There's that disconnect, again. "Wonderful" is a loaded term. Any system that gets results can be said to be "wonderful."

The NBA is a copycat league and, like I said before, if you have a guy who can do the things that the other players who are stars are doing, then you don't have to coach as much, if you're in the copycat business. Which most of these coaches are. You see LeBron James out here doing great things, and your takeaway is that, if you want to win, you need a player who can do LeBron-like things. So, if you have a player who can do LeBron-like things, you don't have to work as hard; you just tell him to go do LeBron things. Winning with a player who is clearly talented, but may not be able to do LeBron-like things, would require a coach and general manager to actually be good at their jobs, and a staggering amount are not.

It's funny to me how, when players seek the path of least resistance, in pursuit of championships, they are labelled weak, soft, cowards, and everything else. But when coaches and management do it, they're just being smart.

My thinking is that if we look at advanced metrics like RPM and such, the top of the list is dominated by players that create offense for themselves and others, bigs that are elite defenders and some wings that are elite team defenders and good shooters. There are very few bigs in there that have defensive limitations and for those that are there for example even Jokic had +2,69 DRPM last year.

This leads to what I have taken to referring to as the Ultron Paradox. So you want me to believe that analytics can tell me that such-and-such metric identifies which basketball attribute is the Most Important Attribute to have, but they can't tell me how to get impact out of a player who can do what a player like Bagley can do?

"The most versatile substance on the planet, and they use it to make a Frisbee..."

... Its probably not easy to just stop being a chickencrap and creating a system where a player has top level impact even if he misses the qualities that usually allows someone to have top level impact. If it were that easy, there probably wouldnt be trends like this, at least not this big.

Of course it's not easy. Coaches and GMs don't get any credit with me for being risk-averse, though.

 

[Gguod]

Has anyone asked him to? I mean, I know that players doing what their coach tells them is a revolutionary concept in 2019, but...

Usually high usage players demonstrate the ability to create for others wether they are asked to do it or not. Thats what I believe in in this particular case. If I had to predict, I would do it based on film and stats and both of those indicates the same thing to me.

The disconnect is rooted in your apparent thesis that "top level" impact means one thing, and one thing only. I reject that premise.

Yes, to me great vision and ability to pass adds huge value to players impact. In this case also I find that stats agree with that and also my eye test agrees.

The NBA is a copycat league and, like I said before, if you have a guy who can do the things that the other players who are stars are doing, then you don't have to coach as much, if you're in the copycat business. Which most of these coaches are. You see LeBron James out here doing great things, and your takeaway is that, if you want to win, you need a player who can do LeBron-like things. So, if you have a player who can do LeBron-like things, you don't have to work as hard; you just tell him to go do LeBron things. Winning with a player who is clearly talented, but may not be able to do LeBron-like things, would require a coach and general manager to actually be good at their jobs, and a staggering amount are not.

In my opinion just saying NBA is copycat league doesnt truly explain certain trends, this being a good example. If for long time certain types of players have been more succesful than other type of players, I would say that fair amount of it could be explained on some skillsets generating more value than others.

It's funny to me how, when players seek the path of least resistance, in pursuit of championships, they are labelled weak, soft, cowards, and everything else. But when coaches and management do it, they're just being smart.

I think its more about them based on data and history choosing a plan that has a highest possible chance to work. Thats smart to me.

This leads to what I have taken to referring to as the Ultron Paradox. So you want me to believe that analytics can tell me that such-and-such metric identifies which basketball attribute is the Most Important Attribute to have, but they can't tell me how to get impact out of a player who can do what a player like Bagley can do?

"The most versatile substance on the planet, and they use it to make a Frisbee..."

In general these metrics tend to point out these things: players that generate efficent offense for themselves and others are generating most value. And with centers, most of their elite value is generated defensively. To me that agrees with what I've seen by watching this league for some time. To me the metrics and the film combined leads to forming that opinion. And thats my opinion and not that anyone needs to agree with that but for me I personally feel like the opinion has a solid argument behind it.

 

[Hansel]

https://community.kingsfans.com/threads/luka-doncic.68189/

If you have some free time. One for the ages.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I think its more about them based on data and history choosing a plan that has a highest possible chance to work. Thats smart to me.

Cowardice is often smart, but it's still cowardice. Lots of college teams play zone defense, because it is highly successful, at that level of basketball.

Zone is for cowards.

In general these metrics tend to point out these things: players that generate efficent offense for themselves and others are generating most value.

Will stipulate that those metrics do, indeed, indicate such. That's as far as I'm willing to go with it, though, because those metrics aren't the sum total of analytics. It's the same problem that I have with other people's analysis: somebody stakes out a position, declaring some attribute to be the Most Important, and then they find the data that validates their hypothesis. Nothing wrong with that, per se, except when you start intimating that any system/player that doesn't conform to your preferred style can't succeed. That's exactly why D'Alessandro's tenure in Sacramento was such a failure: the gerbil had made up his mind what kind of system he wanted to run and, rather than recognize the players he had, and accept a system more suitable to their skills or adjusting his personnel to better reflect his preferred style, the ****er went with Option C: try to force square pegs into round holes.

Everybody who's been around here longer than a minute and a half knows that I am no fan of Vlade Divac: he's been on my FYF list since, roughly, 2004. But he drafted Bagley, at least in part, because he thought that he could succeed by zagging where everybody else in the league is trying to zig. At a minimum, I can applaud him for that.

 

[SLAB]

Dude just put up 22/5/5 in the first quarter.

 

[roasthawg]

I'm chiming in here to recant my predraft take on Luka. I wanted JJJ and thought Luka was a Gordon Hayward type. Dead wrong, he's a superstar. We blew it.

 

[SLAB]

I'm chiming in here to recant my predraft take on Luka. I wanted JJJ and thought Luka was a Gordon Hayward type. Dead wrong, he's a superstar. We blew it.

I honestly think the more people finally hug it out and say “Yo... we screwed up badly” this topic will *somewhat* die down. At least for me.

It’s never going away completely. The Kings made the biggest blunder of the 2000’s. But people trying to justify it in any way at all blow my mind and make me dig my heels down even harder.

 

[gunks]

Dude just put up 22/5/5 in the first quarter.

***************** Vlade! I don't care how good Walton and Holmes are.

Well... I'll probably get over it if the team stays hot AND Fox and Bagley play up to their potential.

But until then.....

 

[fnordius]

Dude just put up 22/5/5 in the first quarter.

Outscoring the entire GSW team by 6 in the process. While shooting 90%.

 

[sergmatt]

But he drafted Bagley, at least in part, because he thought that he could succeed by zagging where everybody else in the league is trying to zig. At a minimum, I can applaud him for that.

I'd prefer my GM's just draft the superior player.