Blow It Up

[Gguod]

First of all, Embiid is an MVP type of talent when he's healthy. Nobody is trading that regardless.

Secondly, I think most here are under-valuing our assets....

(1) Buddy is a top 5 shooter in the league for his career so far and he only has two years left on his deal.

(2) Barnes is the type of vet playoff teams are always looking to add at the trade deadline and his contract only has 1 year remaining so it's even more appealing than Buddy's.

(3) Fox had an All Star level season last year at age 23. He didn't make the team because our team record was bad (what else is new) and we don't get the large market fan voting bump but 25/7/3 and finishing 15th overall in ppg, 12th overall in apg, 15th overall in spg, and 10th overall in fta per game is an All Star season. It's a "what have you done for me lately" world so people are going around talking about him like he's washed up at 24 years old or something but he should be talked about as a top 25 player. Top 20 if he played for the Celtics, Lakers, or Knicks.

(4) Tyrese so far this season joins Jarrett Allen, Ja Morant, and Trae Young as the only players under 25 in the top 20 in VORP. That's a list that includes all of the top MVP candidates and most of this year's consensus All Stars.

Additionally, other teams are overvaluing first round picks like crazy and we still have all of ours. It's pretty much a given that you can't trade for an established star without throwing in first round picks and any team taking on our draft capitol has to feel pretty good about their chances of cashing in. I'm not including Davion since he's yet to get his offense going or Holmes who has been MIA since he had to miss time with the latest eye injury and COVID results.

We have pieces to trade for a star, maybe even two if we move both Fox and Haliburton -- it's just a matter of waiting for the right target to become available and then choosing who to keep based on fit and defensive potential.

You make it sound like we have a pretty great team in our hands. The reality is that even if Fox, Barnes, Hield and others are productive players, their contracts reduce their value as assets. As pure assets the players are worth what other teams are willing to pay for them.

I've also said multiple times that our role players are already good enough. Barnes, Hield, Mitchell, Holmes and Hali are good enough to be on one player of the 8 man rotation on a good playoff team. Fox is good enough to be the 3rd best guy on a good team or even the 2nd best if he tried more on defense. We are still very bad and thats because of the lack of top level talent. You seem to think we can move our current players for those type of guys, I think that those guys arent really available via trade.

We can trade for a star sure if that type of player becomes available. But since you talked about the odds of draft and how thats not great in your opinion (I would like to see the actuall data behind your conclusion) then what are the odds that if a star is available via trade, the Kings are the team that gets him and gets him with a package that doesnt cripple the team around that star currently and in the future. Also whats the contract situation, does the player want to come to the Kings or is he going to leave as soon as his contract is up. Its extremely hard to trade for a star. If people think drafting a star top 3 is difficult, trading for one is on a whole another level of difficulty.


https://www.pdg-analytics.com/articles/nba-draft-all-star-correlations


There is some actual data on the probability of drafting an all star. This data acknowledges all the outliers, all the Bagley level **** ups but its still very clear. It says that if you are hoping to draft an all star, you better be as close to the top of the draft as you can possibly be.

I think its easier to either go with the Toronto route and punt for one season to get better chance at drafting an all star or just taking three years to trying to add cost/&team controlled good players to fit the timeline of Hali(and possibly Fox).

I want to see a Kings fan that is still glad we won those few extra games last year and lost draft position because of it. I want to see a Kings fan that wouldnt have rather lost few extra games and got Scottie Barnes because of that. Total rebuild is a different discussion but as everyone can ackowledge that we should have lost couple more games last year then why shouldnt we lose couple more this year as we arent clearly competing? We have an excellent example from last season and everyone agreeing that we should've done what the Raptors did. Lets not do the same mistake back to back years.

Obviously if you find a star willing to commit to us and getting him cheap then go for it. Relying on that happening is horrible way of running an Nba franchise since the odds of that happening is very low

 

[kb02]

You make it sound like we have a pretty great team in our hands. The reality is that even if Fox, Barnes, Hield and others are productive players, their contracts reduce their value as assets. As pure assets the players are worth what other teams are willing to pay for them.

I've also said multiple times that our role players are already good enough. Barnes, Hield, Mitchell, Holmes and Hali are good enough to be on one player of the 8 man rotation on a good playoff team. Fox is good enough to be the 3rd best guy on a good team or even the 2nd best if he tried more on defense. We are still very bad and thats because of the lack of top level talent. You seem to think we can move our current players for those type of guys, I think that those guys arent really available via trade.

We can trade for a star sure if that type of player becomes available. But since you talked about the odds of draft and how thats not great in your opinion (I would like to see the actuall data behind your conclusion) then what are the odds that if a star is available via trade, the Kings are the team that gets him and gets him with a package that doesnt cripple the team around that star currently and in the future. Also whats the contract situation, does the player want to come to the Kings or is he going to leave as soon as his contract is up. Its extremely hard to trade for a star. If people think drafting a star top 3 is difficult, trading for one is on a whole another level of difficulty.


https://www.pdg-analytics.com/articles/nba-draft-all-star-correlations
View attachment 10834

There is some actual data on the probability of drafting an all star. This data acknowledges all the outliers, all the Bagley level **** ups but its still very clear. It says that if you are hoping to draft an all star, you better be as close to the top of the draft as you can possibly be.

I think its easier to either go with the Toronto route and punt for one season to get better chance at drafting an all star or just taking three years to trying to add cost/&team controlled good players to fit the timeline of Hali(and possibly Fox).

I want to see a Kings fan that is still glad we won those few extra games last year and lost draft position because of it. I want to see a Kings fan that wouldnt have rather lost few extra games and got Scottie Barnes because of that. Total rebuild is a different discussion but as everyone can ackowledge that we should have lost couple more games last year then why shouldnt we lose couple more this year as we arent clearly competing? We have an excellent example from last season and everyone agreeing that we should've done what the Raptors did. Lets not do the same mistake back to back years.

Obviously if you find a star willing to commit to us and getting him cheap then go for it. Relying on that happening is horrible way of running an Nba franchise since the odds of that happening is very low

Good post.

In addition to talent, you gotta find the right type of players. 5 Lonzo Balls will beat 5 Foxes each time. The 5 Foxes may be more talented individually, but combined, the talent decays when they don't play for each other. The reason I hate watching this current team is, outside of a few players, this team is just so damn selfish and low BBIQ.

 

[Dongoodboy]

You make it sound like we have a pretty great team in our hands. The reality is that even if Fox, Barnes, Hield and others are productive players, their contracts reduce their value as assets. As pure assets the players are worth what other teams are willing to pay for them.

I've also said multiple times that our role players are already good enough. Barnes, Hield, Mitchell, Holmes and Hali are good enough to be on one player of the 8 man rotation on a good playoff team. Fox is good enough to be the 3rd best guy on a good team or even the 2nd best if he tried more on defense. We are still very bad and thats because of the lack of top level talent. You seem to think we can move our current players for those type of guys, I think that those guys arent really available via trade.

We can trade for a star sure if that type of player becomes available. But since you talked about the odds of draft and how thats not great in your opinion (I would like to see the actuall data behind your conclusion) then what are the odds that if a star is available via trade, the Kings are the team that gets him and gets him with a package that doesnt cripple the team around that star currently and in the future. Also whats the contract situation, does the player want to come to the Kings or is he going to leave as soon as his contract is up. Its extremely hard to trade for a star. If people think drafting a star top 3 is difficult, trading for one is on a whole another level of difficulty.


https://www.pdg-analytics.com/articles/nba-draft-all-star-correlations
View attachment 10834

There is some actual data on the probability of drafting an all star. This data acknowledges all the outliers, all the Bagley level **** ups but its still very clear. It says that if you are hoping to draft an all star, you better be as close to the top of the draft as you can possibly be.

I think its easier to either go with the Toronto route and punt for one season to get better chance at drafting an all star or just taking three years to trying to add cost/&team controlled good players to fit the timeline of Hali(and possibly Fox).

I want to see a Kings fan that is still glad we won those few extra games last year and lost draft position because of it. I want to see a Kings fan that wouldnt have rather lost few extra games and got Scottie Barnes because of that. Total rebuild is a different discussion but as everyone can ackowledge that we should have lost couple more games last year then why shouldnt we lose couple more this year as we arent clearly competing? We have an excellent example from last season and everyone agreeing that we should've done what the Raptors did. Lets not do the same mistake back to back years.

Obviously if you find a star willing to commit to us and getting him cheap then go for it. Relying on that happening is horrible way of running an Nba franchise since the odds of that happening is very low

This graph should be pinned at the top post to remind every single fan arguing "why you need to tank a higher draft position, _____ is not drafted in top 5", "But Thabeet, Bennett is a bust, see the top picks don't work out"

 

[Warhawk]

This graph should be pinned at the top post to remind every single fan arguing "why you need to tank a higher draft position, _____ is not drafted in top 5", "But Thabeet, Bennett is a bust, see the top picks don't work out"

Except now you have a higher chance of drafting outside the top 3 than in it (lowest expected draft position is 3.7, see below, with less than 40% chance at top 3 if you have the worst record in the league), you have given away likely similar talent in order to tank and get those high draft picks (say, a Fox, who isn't an all-star but is a darn good player overall), and you likely have several losing seasons hoping that your #4 pick turns into an all-star to pull you up out of the dregs.

2022 NBA Draft Lottery Odds | Tankathon

We get the odds. Nobody is arguing the chart. And I'm not saying don't do it if you really want to suffer through yet another handful of years of no PO at the hope your high pick isn't a Bagley or an Oden. But don't try to whitewash the downsides of the approach and act like it's all sun and roses on the other side. Because Philly just did what you are proposing and they still haven't made it past the second round of the PO, despite pulling the biggest series of tankathons you can imagine, and one of their #1 overall draft picks is currently claiming mental health issues and refusing to play.

 

[Dongoodboy]

Except now you have a higher chance of drafting outside the top 3 than in it (lowest expected draft position is 3.7, see below, with less than 40% chance at top 3 if you have the worst record in the league), you have given away likely similar talent in order to tank and get those high draft picks (say, a Fox, who isn't an all-star but is a darn good player overall), and you likely have several losing seasons hoping that your #4 pick turns into an all-star to pull you up out of the dregs.

2022 NBA Draft Lottery Odds | Tankathon

We get the odds. Nobody is arguing the chart. And I'm not saying don't do it if you really want to suffer through yet another handful of years of no PO at the hope your high pick isn't a Bagley or an Oden. But don't try to whitewash the downsides of the approach and act like it's all sun and roses on the other side. Because Philly just did what you are proposing and they still haven't made it past the second round of the PO, despite pulling the biggest series of tankathons you can imagine, and one of their #1 overall draft picks is currently claiming mental health issues and refusing to play.

Nothing is guaranteed but the odds is you probably draft a better player in a higher position. I think we can agree on that.

I don't think Kings should sabotage the team like Philly but a rebuild is needed. Philly fans get a 50 win team after only 5 years of suffering. Some Kings fan may prefer 15 years plus of suffering over that just because they have a needless sense of proudness about Kings should not "tank", which I found very interesting.

 

[steelevt]

You make it sound like we have a pretty great team in our hands. The reality is that even if Fox, Barnes, Hield and others are productive players, their contracts reduce their value as assets. As pure assets the players are worth what other teams are willing to pay for them.

I've also said multiple times that our role players are already good enough. Barnes, Hield, Mitchell, Holmes and Hali are good enough to be on one player of the 8 man rotation on a good playoff team. Fox is good enough to be the 3rd best guy on a good team or even the 2nd best if he tried more on defense. We are still very bad and thats because of the lack of top level talent. You seem to think we can move our current players for those type of guys, I think that those guys arent really available via trade.

We can trade for a star sure if that type of player becomes available. But since you talked about the odds of draft and how thats not great in your opinion (I would like to see the actuall data behind your conclusion) then what are the odds that if a star is available via trade, the Kings are the team that gets him and gets him with a package that doesnt cripple the team around that star currently and in the future. Also whats the contract situation, does the player want to come to the Kings or is he going to leave as soon as his contract is up. Its extremely hard to trade for a star. If people think drafting a star top 3 is difficult, trading for one is on a whole another level of difficulty.


https://www.pdg-analytics.com/articles/nba-draft-all-star-correlations
View attachment 10834

There is some actual data on the probability of drafting an all star. This data acknowledges all the outliers, all the Bagley level **** ups but its still very clear. It says that if you are hoping to draft an all star, you better be as close to the top of the draft as you can possibly be.

I think its easier to either go with the Toronto route and punt for one season to get better chance at drafting an all star or just taking three years to trying to add cost/&team controlled good players to fit the timeline of Hali(and possibly Fox).

I want to see a Kings fan that is still glad we won those few extra games last year and lost draft position because of it. I want to see a Kings fan that wouldnt have rather lost few extra games and got Scottie Barnes because of that. Total rebuild is a different discussion but as everyone can ackowledge that we should have lost couple more games last year then why shouldnt we lose couple more this year as we arent clearly competing? We have an excellent example from last season and everyone agreeing that we should've done what the Raptors did. Lets not do the same mistake back to back years.

Obviously if you find a star willing to commit to us and getting him cheap then go for it. Relying on that happening is horrible way of running an Nba franchise since the odds of that happening is very low

So drafting #2 out of the top 3 is bad, glad that was us bagley’s year. Also drafting #9 has great odds of choosing an allstar? Looks like kings are doing just fine. Can’t wait to buy my davion all star jersey.

 

[TaxMan]

So drafting #2 out of the top 3 is bad, glad that was us bagley’s year. Also drafting #9 has great odds of choosing an allstar? Looks like kings are doing just fine. Can’t wait to buy my davion all star jersey.

Hahaha…

Some of the anomalies in the data are actually pretty interesting and probably get to group think and draft “consensus” pressures that come along with being a GM. Why is there a resurgence of all stars drafted late in the top 10 (historically)? I suspect it has to do with mock draft/consensus that leads up to the draft and pressure for GMs to pick “falling” player that were originally pegged as a top talent. Don’t want to be the idiot that passed on a consensus top 3 talent that fell to you at pick 8, regardless of whether your scouts fully agree. Once that consensus group comes off the table near the end of the top 10, you get the undervalued college players that have talent that ends up better translating to the nba (at least that’s my theory). I think a lot of that thinking probably is a thing of the past as front offices become more sophisticated.

 

[Warhawk]

Nothing is guaranteed but the odds is you probably draft a better player in a higher position. I think we can agree on that.

I don't think Kings should sabotage the team like Philly but a rebuild is needed. Philly fans get a 50 win team after only 5 years of suffering. Some Kings fan may prefer 15 years plus of suffering over that just because they have a needless sense of proudness about Kings should not "tank", which I found very interesting.

Oh, we can totally agree that a higher pick statistically gives you a higher chance at an all-star. Except when you pick Bagley instead of others on the table (at least so far), or your pick has injury issues, or whatever. I'm saying it isn't as black and white as some paint it that a high draft pick is the goal and all our problems are solved. There are downsides and there are potholes, and if we want to stomach those - what the heck, I guess I have nothing better to do than watch people ***** and moan here at KF about sub-20 win teams until 2027.

But our fan base has already wilted (fan attendance has PLUMMETED) after 15 years of suckitude and it would take quite a sell job to get them to stick with the team if you tell them to prepare for another 5 of worse than this in order to maybe draft someone great, but more likely pick at #4 or worse and get more Bagleys.

Hopefully it works out better for us than the 76ers.

 

[Gguod]

I'm saying it isn't as black and white as some paint it that a high draft pick is the goal and all our problems are solved.

It would be easier to have this conversation if you declared who thinks that its black and white. If anyone here has suggested that our problems go away with a top 3 pick then quote that. Dont build your own strawmans.

People commenting on this understand data and probability. If someone doesnt then please make a reference to it because most of the people dont think that getting a top 3 pick automatically means that you will get an all star.

There are downsides and there are potholes, and if we want to stomach those - what the heck, I guess I have nothing better to do than watch people ***** and moan here at KF about sub-20 win teams until 2027.

You yourswlf created that example. To me where we are now is the worst position a team could be and I've said the same thing for so many years now. Even an idiot could get you to a 30+ win team. 36 wins doesnt take much added to that but what the people here are arguing is sustainable success. Being talented enough to be a sure playoff team year after year. After that our success would depend of the level of our top level talent.

But our fan base has already wilted (fan attendance has PLUMMETED) after 15 years of suckitude and it would take quite a sell job to get them to stick with the team if you tell them to prepare for another 5 of worse than this in order to maybe draft someone great, but more likely pick at #4 or worse and get more Bagleys.

I will live more than 3+ years and so will the majority of this fanbase so I will value the long term success compared to doing everything we can to maybe get a taste of the playoffs and because of that becoming the record setting franchise of horrible. There was a lot of discussion about Vlade because it was clear as day he shouldnt be making the shots. A good gm would've never picked Bagley and thats just a fact. The media and the average fan is couple years behind of the sharpest basketball midns. Hire one of those (Mone couldbe that, I'll judge it after the deadline) let him make the decisions and that person wont be a huge idiot and use premium picks to a guy thats a basic pf twenty years ago.

 

[hrdboild]

And that unit was partially created using pieces they did draft, and didn't completely ruin or tank during their development. They traded pieces that didn't completely fit for ones that did. Like Corliss for Christie.

Nobody is arguing that you don't need to draft talent. What all of the pro-tank posters are refusing to acknowledge is that you don't get those top 5 picks by losing, you get those top 5 picks by losing and then getting lucky in the lottery. Most years we've moved down in the lottery from where our record said we should have picked. Unless you also have a plan for how we're going to get the lottery balls to cooperate, the strategy of tanking for top 5 picks amounts to a lot of losing on purpose to have a chance at getting a top 5 pick once every 12 months. And if you don't get lucky you end up picking in the 8-12 range every year -- in other words, exactly what you all are arguing that we shouldn't do.

 

[hrdboild]

You make it sound like we have a pretty great team in our hands. The reality is that even if Fox, Barnes, Hield and others are productive players, their contracts reduce their value as assets. As pure assets the players are worth what other teams are willing to pay for them.

I've also said multiple times that our role players are already good enough. Barnes, Hield, Mitchell, Holmes and Hali are good enough to be on one player of the 8 man rotation on a good playoff team. Fox is good enough to be the 3rd best guy on a good team or even the 2nd best if he tried more on defense. We are still very bad and thats because of the lack of top level talent. You seem to think we can move our current players for those type of guys, I think that those guys arent really available via trade.

We can trade for a star sure if that type of player becomes available. But since you talked about the odds of draft and how thats not great in your opinion (I would like to see the actuall data behind your conclusion) then what are the odds that if a star is available via trade, the Kings are the team that gets him and gets him with a package that doesnt cripple the team around that star currently and in the future. Also whats the contract situation, does the player want to come to the Kings or is he going to leave as soon as his contract is up. Its extremely hard to trade for a star. If people think drafting a star top 3 is difficult, trading for one is on a whole another level of difficulty.


https://www.pdg-analytics.com/articles/nba-draft-all-star-correlations
View attachment 10834

There is some actual data on the probability of drafting an all star. This data acknowledges all the outliers, all the Bagley level **** ups but its still very clear. It says that if you are hoping to draft an all star, you better be as close to the top of the draft as you can possibly be.

I think its easier to either go with the Toronto route and punt for one season to get better chance at drafting an all star or just taking three years to trying to add cost/&team controlled good players to fit the timeline of Hali(and possibly Fox).

I want to see a Kings fan that is still glad we won those few extra games last year and lost draft position because of it. I want to see a Kings fan that wouldnt have rather lost few extra games and got Scottie Barnes because of that. Total rebuild is a different discussion but as everyone can ackowledge that we should have lost couple more games last year then why shouldnt we lose couple more this year as we arent clearly competing? We have an excellent example from last season and everyone agreeing that we should've done what the Raptors did. Lets not do the same mistake back to back years.

Obviously if you find a star willing to commit to us and getting him cheap then go for it. Relying on that happening is horrible way of running an Nba franchise since the odds of that happening is very low

Wrap yourself in a warm blanket of DATA if that makes you feel better but your argument is seriously flawed. Multiple All Stars and MVPs have been available for us and we passed on them. You can point to your equation and tell me what should have happened but that doesn't change what did happen. No average curve is going to account for the fact that we're talking about 1 pick every year. It could take 50 years before your sample set matches the curve. I probably won't be alive in 50 years.

And I did post how I got my odds -- it's all there in my posts. Take the lottery odds needed to get a top 3 pick based on where you finish relative to other teams (easy to look up) and multiply by the odds of drafting an All-Star in the top 3 based on the last 20 drafts (easy to count if you want to do the work -- sactowndog and I agreed on 2/3 which is slightly higher than what your chart shows). It averages out to around 25% if you finish somewhere in the bottom 5. If someone wants to give us a top 3 pick I'll gladly take it but it's precisely because NBA front offices are obsessed with charts like the one you just posted that nobody is trading a top 3 pick right now for anything less than an All Star. Probably not even a top 5 pick. Which means the only way to get one is to both lose a lot and get lucky in the lottery.

Here's where I point back to the 6-12% number I posted earlier -- which are the odds of drafting 2 All Stars in close succession with top 3 picks. Based on your critique of our roster I think you would agree that tanking to end up with one All Star is just going to put us back in the same position we are in right now -- not enough top end talent to compete. I don't think a rebuild strategy with a 6-12% chance of success is a very good plan. It's going to take a combination of drafting well, trading well, and signing a key free agent or two to turn this team into a contender. Maybe it's harder to root for that than lottery numbers but it's what we should be doing.

 

[Gguod]

Wrap yourself in a warm blanket of DATA if that makes you feel better but your argument is seriously flawed. Multiple All Stars and MVPs have been available for us and we passed on them. You can point to your equation and tell me what should have happened but that doesn't change what did happen. No average curve is going to account for the fact that we're talking about 1 pick every year. It could take 50 years before your sample set matches the curve. I probably won't be alive in 50 years.

And I did post how I got my odds -- it's all there in my posts. Take the lottery odds needed to get a top 3 pick based on where you finish relative to other teams (easy to look up) and multiply by the odds of drafting an All-Star in the top 3 based on the last 20 drafts (easy to count if you want to do the work -- sactowndog and I agreed on 2/3 which is slightly higher than what your chart shows). It averages out to around 25% if you finish somewhere in the bottom 5. If someone wants to give us a top 3 pick I'll gladly take it but it's precisely because NBA front offices are obsessed with charts like the one you just posted that nobody is trading a top 3 pick right now for anything less than an All Star. Probably not even a top 5 pick. Which means the only way to get one is to both lose a lot and get lucky in the lottery.

Here's where I point back to the 6-12% number I posted earlier -- which are the odds of drafting 2 All Stars in close succession with top 3 picks. Based on your critique of our roster I think you would agree that tanking to end up with one All Star is just going to put us back in the same position we are in right now -- not enough top end talent to compete. I don't think a rebuild strategy with a 6-12% chance of success is a very good plan. It's going to take a combination of drafting well, trading well, and signing a key free agent or two to turn this team into a contender. Maybe it's harder to root for that than lottery numbers but it's what we should be doing.

If you talk about draft odds then this is the actual data you want to reference to if you want to base your argument on data:



I'm sorry if I missed if you offered a databank to support those 6-12% statements but the data I have is clear that you should be as close to 1 as possible. All the idiotic Bagley and Militic picks are accounted to that dont worry.

We also dont have to talk about one pick every year. If you are actually this much and arguing against total rebuild (I'm not saying total rebuild is the only option) then we could have multiple bites of the apple.

All Im saying is that top level talent is what we need in order to be competitive. I think that statistically we have much better chance to get that player long term via draft compared to hoping to trade for a guy like that.

Im going to say this again, does anyone think that Toronto is mad because they strategized to lose few more games last season and got Scottie Barnes for it? Does anyone think that it was good for us to win couple of more games and get Mitchell instead of Barnes or Wagner? No one thinks that and I'm baffeled if anyone thinks that we should do the same exact thing we did last year that everyone of us can say that it was a mistake.

Full rebuild isnt the only option. Going Toronto for one year is a valid chance to keep Fox and Hali and add as good player via draft as you possibly can

 

[whozit]

Wrap yourself in a warm blanket of DATA if that makes you feel better but your argument is seriously flawed. Multiple All Stars and MVPs have been available for us and we passed on them. You can point to your equation and tell me what should have happened but that doesn't change what did happen. No average curve is going to account for the fact that we're talking about 1 pick every year. It could take 50 years before your sample set matches the curve. I probably won't be alive in 50 years.

And I did post how I got my odds -- it's all there in my posts. Take the lottery odds needed to get a top 3 pick based on where you finish relative to other teams (easy to look up) and multiply by the odds of drafting an All-Star in the top 3 based on the last 20 drafts (easy to count if you want to do the work -- sactowndog and I agreed on 2/3 which is slightly higher than what your chart shows). It averages out to around 25% if you finish somewhere in the bottom 5. If someone wants to give us a top 3 pick I'll gladly take it but it's precisely because NBA front offices are obsessed with charts like the one you just posted that nobody is trading a top 3 pick right now for anything less than an All Star. Probably not even a top 5 pick. Which means the only way to get one is to both lose a lot and get lucky in the lottery.

Here's where I point back to the 6-12% number I posted earlier -- which are the odds of drafting 2 All Stars in close succession with top 3 picks. Based on your critique of our roster I think you would agree that tanking to end up with one All Star is just going to put us back in the same position we are in right now -- not enough top end talent to compete. I don't think a rebuild strategy with a 6-12% chance of success is a very good plan. It's going to take a combination of drafting well, trading well, and signing a key free agent or two to turn this team into a contender. Maybe it's harder to root for that than lottery numbers but it's what we should be doing.

With the Kings currently in the 10th slot, the likelyhood that Vivek would allow Monte to pull the plug on this season is less than next to none

I think one thing that many could agree with, would be if a season has gone sideways, pull the plug on that season. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater but use the remainder of that particular season as an extended training camp and focus on developing the players that should be the future.

 

[hrdboild]

If you talk about draft odds then this is the actual data you want to reference to if you want to base your argument on data:

View attachment 10835

I'm sorry if I missed if you offered a databank to support those 6-12% statements but the data I have is clear that you should be as close to 1 as possible. All the idiotic Bagley and Militic picks are accounted to that dont worry.

We also dont have to talk about one pick every year. If you are actually this much and arguing against total rebuild (I'm not saying total rebuild is the only option) then we could have multiple bites of the apple.

All Im saying is that top level talent is what we need in order to be competitive. I think that statistically we have much better chance to get that player long term via draft compared to hoping to trade for a guy like that.

Im going to say this again, does anyone think that Toronto is mad because they strategized to lose few more games last season and got Scottie Barnes for it? Does anyone think that it was good for us to win couple of more games and get Mitchell instead of Barnes or Wagner? No one thinks that and I'm baffeled if anyone thinks that we should do the same exact thing we did last year that everyone of us can say that it was a mistake.

Full rebuild isnt the only option. Going Toronto for one year is a valid chance to keep Fox and Hali and add as good player via draft as you possibly can

No I didn't offer a databank because I'm not going to do busy work to prove what I already spelled out. I gave you everything you need to calculate it yourself if you really want to. You're not even understanding what I've already written though since you just reposted the same chart again which -- for the third time -- does not account in any way for lottery odds.

Also, Scottie Barnes has played 33 NBA games. You probably should slow your roll on proclaiming him a franchise player. I was a big believer in Brandon Jennings back when he was in the draft and he scored 55 points in his 7th game in the NBA... and never did it again. We have no idea if Mitchell, Barnes, or Wagner will have a better NBA career yet. I'm not calling that pick a mistake based on half a season.

 

[mrlaze]

With the Kings currently in the 10th slot, the likelyhood that Vivek would allow Monte to pull the plug on this season is less than next to none

I think one thing that many could agree with, would be if a season has gone sideways, pull the plug on that season. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater but use the remainder of that particular season as an extended training camp and focus on developing the players that should be the future.

This is what they should have done last season. And the fire Luke in the off season, but here we are in the same place, a year older. Hopefully they dont overpay Bagley.

 

[Rob-The-Great]

Screw the data. Kings need to get into the playoffs at all cost. It's not about 1 player coming to save us. It's not about drafting a allstar. Are culture is in a crisis. We need to taste the playoffs so we can gain a little respect around the league. Even if that's a 1 and done. It will do more for us than a draft pick. Who's to say Bagley wouldn't have become a allstar with the right culture. Instead he ends up in sac, where we are expected to lose and boom, he's a loser.

Until we shake this loser mentality, tanking will do us no good. We must reach playoffs at all cost. People forget that some of those key pieces on 76ers were once kings. Why do they succeed there but not here? Cousins was just as good as The process in his prime. But our culture sucks!

 

[Gguod]

No I didn't offer a databank because I'm not going to do busy work to prove what I already spelled out. I gave you everything you need to calculate it yourself if you really want to. You're not even understanding what I've already written though since you just reposted the same chart again which -- for the third time -- does not account in any way for lottery odds.

Also, Scottie Barnes has played 33 NBA games. You probably should slow your roll on proclaiming him a franchise player. I was a big believer in Brandon Jennings back when he was in the draft and he scored 55 points in his 7th game in the NBA... and never did it again. We have no idea if Mitchell, Barnes, or Wagner will have a better NBA career yet. I'm not calling that pick a mistake based on half a season.

I ask for a databank if you offer statistics and percentages. Also I'm not saying Scottie Barnes is a franchise player but if you want to be alone on that hill that we are better now because we won a couple of additional games last year compared to beibg able to draft guys like Barnes or Wagner ect then so be it. I can assure you that you are quite alone on that hill and its extremely hard to argue that our strategy was good when there is literally proof that it was not. Also when anything hasnt changed and we still arent competing, the easy answer is that we absolutely should make sure we get a good pick this year. It was the best strategy last year, there is statistical evidence to back up that argument and its still the best strategy now statistically.

Im tired of this franchise going against probabilities. It easily results to garbage and no one in here can change the data. Data is a type of fact and I wouldnt form my strategy against data and facts

 

[The_Jamal]

Wrap yourself in a warm blanket of DATA if that makes you feel better but your argument is seriously flawed. Multiple All Stars and MVPs have been available for us and we passed on them. You can point to your equation and tell me what should have happened but that doesn't change what did happen. No average curve is going to account for the fact that we're talking about 1 pick every year. It could take 50 years before your sample set matches the curve. I probably won't be alive in 50 years.

And I did post how I got my odds -- it's all there in my posts. Take the lottery odds needed to get a top 3 pick based on where you finish relative to other teams (easy to look up) and multiply by the odds of drafting an All-Star in the top 3 based on the last 20 drafts (easy to count if you want to do the work -- sactowndog and I agreed on 2/3 which is slightly higher than what your chart shows). It averages out to around 25% if you finish somewhere in the bottom 5. If someone wants to give us a top 3 pick I'll gladly take it but it's precisely because NBA front offices are obsessed with charts like the one you just posted that nobody is trading a top 3 pick right now for anything less than an All Star. Probably not even a top 5 pick. Which means the only way to get one is to both lose a lot and get lucky in the lottery.

Here's where I point back to the 6-12% number I posted earlier -- which are the odds of drafting 2 All Stars in close succession with top 3 picks. Based on your critique of our roster I think you would agree that tanking to end up with one All Star is just going to put us back in the same position we are in right now -- not enough top end talent to compete. I don't think a rebuild strategy with a 6-12% chance of success is a very good plan. It's going to take a combination of drafting well, trading well, and signing a key free agent or two to turn this team into a contender. Maybe it's harder to root for that than lottery numbers but it's what we should be doing.

None of this is predictive, it's all descriptive. You can assign arbitrary parameters to your data set, doesn't mean that trend is going to continue.

What isn't irrefutable is your much more likely to get a franchise player in the top 5 than you are later in the draft as @Gguod pointed out in his chart. Especially later in the lottery. Of course you can draft a bust in a sea of blue-chip prospects (us in 2018), but that doesn't change the fact that when you're a bad team, you want the best chance to get that franchise changing talent. You're far more likely to get access to franchise changing talent pool at 1-5 than you are 9-14 (where we've been stuck forever).

 

[hrdboild]

I ask for a databank if you offer statistics and percentages. Also I'm not saying Scottie Barnes is a franchise player but if you want to be alone on that hill that we are better now because we won a couple of additional games last year compared to beibg able to draft guys like Barnes or Wagner ect then so be it. I can assure you that you are quite alone on that hill and its extremely hard to argue that our strategy was good when there is literally proof that it was not. Also when anything hasnt changed and we still arent competing, the easy answer is that we absolutely should make sure we get a good pick this year. It was the best strategy last year, there is statistical evidence to back up that argument and its still the best strategy now statistically.

Im tired of this franchise going against probabilities. It easily results to garbage and no one in here can change the data. Data is a type of fact and I wouldnt form my strategy against data and facts

I'm mostly arguing with you because you seem to evince an attitude which I've noticed has become increasingly prevalent in the last decade which is that the data is never wrong and we should make all of our decisions based on data until proven otherwise. But then I pressed you to acknowledge context (namely that the chart you showed is only part of the big picture and directly relates to a different chart which looks like this) and I get the impression you don't even understand what the data you posted is actually saying. You've found a chart on the internet and now that's your argument. Millions of other people have found the same chart and now by sheer force of numbers they've talked themselves into believing that they can't be wrong because so many people agree with them.

I think it's fair to have an argument about the relative merits of losing on purpose as opposed to using whatever means necessary to field the best team you can with your current resources. We've already been having that argument here for most of the last 15 years. But if you're going to just re-post a chart and then cherry pick some examples from the most recent draft you're not actually engaging with the topic in an intellectually rigorous way. I think algorithms represent the death of intellectual discourse but since you believe so strongly in them, I invite you or anyone else to come up with some kind of algorithm to show me how many lottery picks you anticipate will be required for your "rebuild through the draft" strategy to work. I'll give you some guidelines: (1) You need to find 2 All Stars in the draft. (2) It has to take no more than 6 years. (3) You must account for lottery odds. (4) You must end up with at least 66% chance of success.

 

[whozit]

I ask for a databank if you offer statistics and percentages. Also I'm not saying Scottie Barnes is a franchise player but if you want to be alone on that hill that we are better now because we won a couple of additional games last year compared to beibg able to draft guys like Barnes or Wagner ect then so be it. I can assure you that you are quite alone on that hill and its extremely hard to argue that our strategy was good when there is literally proof that it was not. Also when anything hasnt changed and we still arent competing, the easy answer is that we absolutely should make sure we get a good pick this year. It was the best strategy last year, there is statistical evidence to back up that argument and its still the best strategy now statistically.

Im tired of this franchise going against probabilities. It easily results to garbage and no one in here can change the data. Data is a type of fact and I wouldnt form my strategy against data and facts

IT IS A FACT THAT IF THE KINGS DON'T MAKE THE PLAYOFFS THEN Mr Vivek WOULD BE SOLE OWNER OF THE LONGEST NON-PLAYOFF STREAK IN LEAGUE HISTORY.

That is a fact. And it sucks that it appears that it is a driving consideration.

And worrying about the past doesn't help tomorrow. The record is what it is.

 

[whozit]

Screw the data. Kings need to get into the playoffs at all cost. It's not about 1 player coming to save us. It's not about drafting a allstar. Are culture is in a crisis. We need to taste the playoffs so we can gain a little respect around the league. Even if that's a 1 and done. It will do more for us than a draft pick. Who's to say Bagley wouldn't have become a allstar with the right culture. Instead he ends up in sac, where we are expected to lose and boom, he's a loser.

Until we shake this loser mentality, tanking will do us no good. We must reach playoffs at all cost. People forget that some of those key pieces on 76ers were once kings. Why do they succeed there but not here? Cousins was just as good as The process in his prime. But our culture sucks!

At all costs? Isn't that how this storied franchise started in Sacramento? Sold the future just for the honor of being swept by the Rockets. How many years before the Kings sniffed of the playoffs again? No, there is a cap on costs.

 

[hrdboild]

None of this is predictive, it's all descriptive. You can assign arbitrary parameters to your data set, doesn't mean that trend is going to continue.

What isn't irrefutable is your much more likely to get a franchise player in the top 5 than you are later in the draft as @Gguod pointed out in his chart. Especially later in the lottery. Of course you can draft a bust in a sea of blue-chip prospects (us in 2018), but that doesn't change the fact that when you're a bad team, you want the best chance to get that franchise changing talent. You're far more likely to get access to franchise changing talent pool at 1-5 than you are 9-14 (where we've been stuck forever).

This amounts basically to assuming your own conclusion as if it is a priori and irrefutable. Obviously better players trend toward the top of the draft. So do average players and even below average players. How are you going to tell which is which? The odds say nothing on drafting strategy and if you have a poor drafting strategy you're probably going to routinely find the lesser players in the pool. And we didn't draft a bust in a sea of blue chip prospects in 2018, we drafted a decent player in a sea of decent players dotted with 2.5 players (Luka, Trae, Ayton-ish) who seem like likely All Stars. The same is true in almost every draft.

 

[sactowndog]

This amounts basically to assuming your own conclusion as if it is a priori and irrefutable. Obviously better players trend toward the top of the draft. So do average players and even below average players. How are you going to tell which is which? The odds say nothing on drafting strategy and if you have a poor drafting strategy you're probably going to routinely find the lesser players in the pool. And we didn't draft a bust in a sea of blue chip prospects in 2018, we drafted a decent player in a sea of decent players dotted with 2.5 players (Luka, Trae, Ayton-ish) who seem like likely All Stars. The same is true in almost every draft.

So the Kings have tried it your way for the past 8 or so years. How is it working out for them? By the way, this isn’t a year to tank as it is considered a relatively weak draft.

 

[The_Jamal]

This amounts basically to assuming your own conclusion as if it is a priori and irrefutable. Obviously better players trend toward the top of the draft. So do average players and even below average players. How are you going to tell which is which? The odds say nothing on drafting strategy and if you have a poor drafting strategy you're probably going to routinely find the lesser players in the pool. And we didn't draft a bust in a sea of blue chip prospects in 2018, we drafted a decent player in a sea of decent players dotted with 2.5 players (Luka, Trae, Ayton-ish) who seem like likely All Stars. The same is true in almost every draft.

I mean, I could post a pile of numbers on how big of a bust Marvin has been sandwiched between 4 all-star caliber players, but I'm guessing you wouldn't be too receptive to that considering the direction of the thread .

But you can simply look at the Kings as anecdotal evidence. The only 2 players close to being franchise cornerstones were in the top 5 (Boogie/Fox). They whiffed on drafting another with an absolute plethora of options in 2018. And a decade of picking 9-14 has proceeded to leave the Kings in 33-39 win hell. So why would continuing on the same path lead to different results?

 

[Warhawk]

So the Kings have tried it your way for the past 8 or so years. How is it working out for them? By the way, this isn’t a year to tank as it is considered a relatively weak draft.

From 2009 through 2018 we had 5 top 5 picks (ideal results from a tankathon method) and another 6 picks from 6-10. How is that working out for us?

 

[Gguod]

I'm mostly arguing with you because you seem to evince an attitude which I've noticed has become increasingly prevalent in the last decade which is that the data is never wrong and we should make all of our decisions based on data until proven otherwise. But then I pressed you to acknowledge context (namely that the chart you showed is only part of the big picture and directly relates to a different chart which looks like this)
and I get the impression you don't even understand what the data you posted is actually saying. You've found a chart on the internet and now that's your argument. Millions of other people have found the same chart and now by sheer force of numbers they've talked themselves into believing that they can't be wrong because so many people agree with them.

Please tell me and everyone else in here on how we dont understand that statistically and factually it benefits you to be as high in the draft process as possible. Lottery odds certainty dont explain anything. I'm very well aware of those odds and its still much more benefitial for a team to be top 5 pre lottery rather than 9 or worse. Thats a fact that is based on stats, if you want to argue that then go on I guess?

I think it's fair to have an argument about the relative merits of losing on purpose as opposed to using whatever means necessary to field the best team you can with your current resources.

You can have that argument if you want but if I point statistical data to you, you wont accept it. If I point to you an actual example of what Raptors did last year, you wont accept it either. You apparently want to form your stategy against the data and so be it, just dont argue like that path is someohw supported by any data.

We've already been having that argument here for most of the last 15 years. But if you're going to just re-post a chart and then cherry pick some examples from the most recent draft you're not actually engaging with the topic in an intellectually rigorous way. I think algorithms represent the death of intellectual discourse but since you believe so strongly in them, I invite you are anyone else to come up with some kind of algorithm to show me how many lottery picks you anticipate will be required for your "rebuild through the draft" strategy to work. I'll give you some guidelines: (1) You need to find 2 All Stars in the draft. (2) It has to take no more than 6 years. (3) You must account for lottery odds. (4) You must end up with at least 66% chance of success.

You have been presented with data. I can give you more on this subject but to me this id quite clear so there should be no need to do that. If you think that data and algorithms somehow cancel the possibility of an intellectual conversation then I dont know what to say.

You ask me abouy my strategy? Fine I can say that. You yourself talked about odds in a draft being bad and at the same time enforced that the way forward is to find some magicall trade that turns our win now vets into even better win now vets.

My strategy is to start with what the Raptors did last year. You are not competing? Then focus on your draft position. Put yourself in a best possible position statistically to be succesfull in the draft. Thats the first step and go from there. Winning 37 compared to 29 doesnt do anything. Our franchise is the living proof of that. Focus on the future as long as you got enough talent to compete.

 

[Dongoodboy]

From 2009 through 2018 we had 5 top 5 picks (ideal results from a tankathon method) and another 6 picks from 6-10. How is that working out for us?

They gave us 2 best players (Fox and Boogie) despite we are atrocious at drafting. I am sure you know what we got from trade and free agent market

 

[Warhawk]

Please tell me and everyone else in here on how we dont understand that statistically and factually it benefits you to be as high in the draft process as possible.

For the last time, nobody is arguing that point. I wish you could understand that.

You just keep ignoring everything outside that chart you love to keep posting.

 

[Warhawk]

They gave us 2 best players (Fox and Boogie) despite we are atrocious at drafting. I am sure you know what we got from trade and free agent market

I know it did. And how many playoff appearances have we made since that 10 year run of ideal draft positioning (5 top 5 picks and 6 other top 10 picks)?

You know, it's almost like having high draft picks is no guarantee of playoff basketball if your team doesn't have good management and a focus on quality talent acquisition in all areas.

 

[Dongoodboy]

Please tell me and everyone else in here on how we dont understand that statistically and factually it benefits you to be as high in the draft process as possible. Lottery odds certainty dont explain anything. I'm very well aware of those odds and its still much more benefitial for a team to be top 5 pre lottery rather than 9 or worse. Thats a fact that is based on stats, if you want to argue that then go on I guess?



You can have that argument if you want but if I point statistical data to you, you wont accept it. If I point to you an actual example of what Raptors did last year, you wont accept it either. You apparently want to form your stategy against the data and so be it, just dont argue like that path is someohw supported by any data.



You have been presented with data. I can give you more on this subject but to me this id quite clear so there should be no need to do that. If you think that data and algorithms somehow cancel the possibility of an intellectual conversation then I dont know what to say.

You ask me abouy my strategy? Fine I can say that. You yourself talked about odds in a draft being bad and at the same time enforced that the way forward is to find some magicall trade that turns our win now vets into even better win now vets.

My strategy is to start with what the Raptors did last year. You are not competing? Then focus on your draft position. Put yourself in a best possible position statistically to be succesfull in the draft. Thats the first step and go from there. Winning 37 compared to 29 doesnt do anything. Our franchise is the living proof of that. Focus on the future as long as you got enough talent to compete.

This is the problem of this franchise. They don't know what they are doing. Masai Ujiri is too smart not to maximize the draft position once he knew the season is a lost cause. Kings on the other hand, continue to play the vets just to miss out the playin. We didn't develop our guys nor improve the position.