Blow It Up

[kb02]

Only if you don't understand the chart.

The blue line represents team records and where the teams end up drafting. Because of the lottery, you would expect a flatter line. Duh. That’s what the lottery is supposed to do.

The Y-axis measures all star nods and when they’re picked, which is measured by the red line.

Combining the two data sets adds no new value. Essentially, the blue line is noise.

 

[Livinthedream]

The trick isn't drafting talent, it's not tanking it. If you made the NBA you have some degree of talent. The Kings are a lead example of wiping your butt with whatever talent you do have and waiting until all value is sapped before doing something. Great franchises are usually ahead of those things.

Well, the Kings better trade Marvin ASAP, because his value will drop again when Holmes comes back.

 

[Dime Dropper]

The blue line also indicates that the worse record you have, the more likely you are to draft an all star. Both lines represent this. It demonstrates exactly what some here are arguing - you give yourself much better odds of drafting all star talent the higher you pick. Duh.

 

[kb02]

The blue line also indicates that the worse record you have, the more likely you are to draft an all star. Both lines represent this. It demonstrates exactly what some here are arguing - you give yourself much better odds of drafting all star talent the higher you pick. Duh.

Yea, the anti-tank crowd would be cheering for an absolutely horizontal blue line.

 

[Warhawk]

The blue line represents team records and where the teams end up drafting. Because of the lottery, you would expect a flatter line. Duh. That’s what the lottery is supposed to do.

The Y-axis measures all star nods and when they’re picked, which is measured by the red line.

Combining the two data sets adds no new value. Essentially, the blue line is noise.

No, the blue line gives very important information that is being ignored by the "Process" folks. It gives a realistic/mathematically expected result based on your pre-lottery record. The pre-lottery record is what a team can "control" and what should be statistically "expected" as far as results.

 

[Warhawk]

The blue line also indicates that the worse record you have, the more likely you are to draft an all star. Both lines represent this. It demonstrates exactly what some here are arguing - you give yourself much better odds of drafting all star talent the higher you pick. Duh.

And absolutely nobody is arguing that point.

But the odds to get an all-star-type player are not as high as some keep pushing or apparently expecting, especially with the changes recently to flatten that curve and expressly making the benefits of tanking to get the worst record less "desirable".

 

[Dime Dropper]

No, the blue line gives very important information that is being ignored by the "Process" folks. It gives a realistic/mathematically expected result based on your pre-lottery record. The pre-lottery record is what a team can "control" and what should be statistically "expected" as far as results.

Dude, we're going around in circles. Everybody knows having a worse record doesn't guarantee the best pick. We're all aware of how the lottery works. The line represents exactly what anyone would expect - the worse record you have, the more likely you are to draft an all-star.

We don't all need to keep arguing this.

At the end of the day, some peoe are advocating playing the odds. Others are advocating making the best trades possible, savvy FA signings, and drafting very well at mediocre/poor draft spots. Well yeah, of course the latter is the better option if it was actually feasible. It's not unless you have an elite GM and are located in a big market. And it's the tactic this franchise has tried to employ, and failed miserably at, for the last decade and a half.

I am not a big proponent of tanking atm. Know why? I simply do not care. This franchise will not do what's best for itself. Why should I even bother. Brick saved himself the hassle of explaing this to people long ago.

 

[kb02]

No, the blue line gives very important information that is being ignored by the "Process" folks. It gives a realistic/mathematically expected result based on your pre-lottery record. The pre-lottery record is what a team can "control" and what should be statistically "expected" as far as results.

Hinkie’s NBA tanking strategy hinged on the number of shots on goal.

 

[Dime Dropper]

And absolutely nobody is arguing that point.

But the odds to get an all-star-type player are not as high as some keep pushing or apparently expecting, especially with the changes recently to flatten that curve and expressly making the benefits of tanking to get the worst record less "desirable".

Idk Warhawk, I haven't seen a single person saying anything is guarantees at the top of the draft. I've sure seen people refute that point though, even when it wasn't made.

If you've seen those posts, I'd love to see them quoted.

 

[Warhawk]

At the end of the day, some peoe are advocating playing the odds.

Yeah, the odds are that you could go 0-82 and still have maybe a 40% chance to get an all-star, and that's assuming you have a competent front office / management for draft selection and player development. So, by all means, trade away what talent we have for that option if you think that really is the best approach for the Kings. I'm...skeptical that a "Process" option would actually work here, and it would take several more years of losing in order to see if it even stands a chance of success with our existing talent playing on other teams.

 

[Dime Dropper]

Yeah, the odds are that you could go 0-82 and still have maybe a 40% chance to get an all-star, and that's assuming you have a competent front office / management for draft selection and player development. So, by all means, trade away what talent we have for that option if you think that really is the best approach for the Kings. I'm...skeptical that a "Process" option would actually work here, and it would take several more years of losing in order to see if it even stands a chance of success with our existing talent playing on other teams.

You're arguing against something I never said, suggested or even implied. I'm not on the "trade Fox/Haliburton/insert young player" bandwagon. Far from it.

I do think we should look at flipping Barnes/Hield/Holmes for young talent and/or picks to build a real future alongside Fox and Tyrese.

 

[kb02]

Yeah, the odds are that you could go 0-82 and still have maybe a 40% chance to get an all-star, and that's assuming you have a competent front office / management for draft selection and player development. So, by all means, trade away what talent we have for that option if you think that really is the best approach for the Kings. I'm...skeptical that a "Process" option would actually work here, and it would take several more years of losing in order to see if it even stands a chance of success with our existing talent playing on other teams.

Shots on goal. 40% + 40% + 40% + 40% + 40% gets you Embid and Simmons.

 

[Dime Dropper]

I also don't see how several more years of losing is less attractive than... Several more years of losing unintentionally with an even worse long term outcome?

 

[whozit]

Yeah, the odds are that you could go 0-82 and still have maybe a 40% chance to get an all-star, and that's assuming you have a competent front office / management for draft selection and player development. So, by all means, trade away what talent we have for that option if you think that really is the best approach for the Kings. I'm...skeptical that a "Process" option would actually work here, and it would take several more years of losing in order to see if it even stands a chance of success with our existing talent playing on other teams.

I think the middle ground is when the season has gone sideways, pull the plug. Don't have a fire sale but don't also keep giving vets that aren't long term the bulk of the minutes. The Kings have consistently done the latter. If you lose at least you are finding out what you have. And if you win, great, you might have found something worth keeping.

 

[Warhawk]

Idk Warhawk, I haven't seen a single person saying anything is guarantees at the top of the draft. I've sure seen people refute that point though, even when it wasn't made.

If you've seen those posts, I'd love to see them quoted.

Here's one:

Certainly it can be but good GM’s rarely strick out with a top 3 pick. Top 5 maybe and Top 8 certainly.

Also, continuously reposting the chart sure seems to "hint" that it's a guarantee at the top - just have a losing record and you're golden, right?

As far as that we should just blow it up and rebuild with picks? How about the OP?

Everyone gone. This team is terrible. The whole team. I’d do much rather be doing what the Rockets or any other terrible team are doing than constantly trotting out this group in a futile attempt to lose in the play-in.

Or this:

100%.....it's more fun to watch a bunch of super young and raw guys lose than what we see now

Or this:

Hopefully Vivek finally realizes he needs to butt out and he's actually losing money by trying to push for the 8th seed, rather than let a GM build a contender that will consistently be in the playoffs for 5+ years. The "Monte ball" prospects have shown me more than enough that he's a good judge of talent and assuming we could bottom out this year with a new warchest from Fox/Buddy/Barnes and maybe Holmes that you could turn this around real real fast with Fox/Mitchell already in place.

I think virtually every Kings fan would vastly enjoy watching a rotation of like:

Mitchell
Hali || Ramsey
King || Woodard
Metu || Bagley || Woodard
Len || Queta

and just seeing what those young guys could do. They'll suck, but at least they'll suck properly and we'd give ourselves potentially the chance to see if any of these guys can really spike and be a key contributor in the long-term. It'd certainly be better than watching an 80 mil core max out at being a 35 win team for the 3rd consecutive season and being the 11th worst team in basketball.

There's just a few examples from early in this thread alone, and I'm not about to go hunting for more.

 

[miltonap]

In summary:

Being a worse team gives you better draft odds. Can we stop arguing this ?

Now, the question is, taking into account where the Kings are, what assets they have, how good their development team is, how good their coaching is, how good their management is, how small of a market they are in, the growing apathy of their fanbase, what is the best strategy for them to field a consistently winning team ?

I think it's not such a simple question.

I think there are merits to a combo of different strategies, but I definitely know no free agent is going to knock on this door until we become a respectable franchise.

So considering that, how much can we really get better with our current assets through trade and middling draft picks ?

To be honest, I don't think it's much.

I think this team needs to land another star (depending on what you consider De'arron Fox to be) to be a playoff team.

Now, once we are a playoff team, then we can talk about FA's, and the outlook then would now be a different one.

I think really trying to pull off a miracle through amazing trades and snatching an undercover all star with a middling draft pick is a very risky move.

And if it fails we are right back to where we are now.

I just think it's simpler to lose some more games (of course, doing it the right way, by selling off vets that are not in the long term winning picture for younger pieces with potential for example).

I don't feel much satisfaction in watching Harrison Barnes and Richaun Holmes wheel us to 5 more wins, making us a 36 win team instead of a 31 win team.

 

[Warhawk]

You're arguing against something I never said, suggested or even implied. I'm not on the "trade Fox/Haliburton/insert young player" bandwagon. Far from it.

I do think we should look at flipping Barnes/Hield/Holmes for young talent and/or picks to build a real future alongside Fox and Tyrese.

I never said you did. You just said people wanted to play the odds. That's what the odds are.

Shots on goal. 40% + 40% + 40% + 40% + 40% gets you Embid and Simmons.

Which hasn't gotten them past the second round in the East and Simmons is apparently now faking a mental illness so he doesn't have to play this season becuase his feelings were hurt, so....

Also, that approach got us Cousins and Fox and others, but still didn't lead us anywhere by the time we developed them.

 

[kb02]

I never said you did. You just said people wanted to play the odds. That's what the odds are.



Which hasn't gotten them past the second round in the East and Simmons is apparently now faking a mental illness so he doesn't have to play this season becuase his feelings were hurt, so....

Also, that approach got us Cousins and Fox and others, but still didn't lead us anywhere by the time we developed them.

Sure seems a whole lot better than 15 years of sucking.

 

[whozit]

Sure seems a whole lot better than 15 years of sucking.

Honest question. If Vivek approved doing so, do you honestly think he would have the stomach to carry it all the way through?

That needs to be taken into account also.

 

[Warhawk]

Sure seems a whole lot better than 15 years of sucking.

You really think Philly is happy with Simmons pouting and sitting out with a "fake" disability (or a legit medical issue, but you seem to discount that opinion)? Also, that was in the East where until very recently it has been comically easy to get into the PO - heck the Kings record would have gotten them in there a few times IIRC.

Which we have anyways (sucked), despite having 5 top 5 picks plus a bunch more top 10 picks in over just a decade, including drafting two all-stars during that time (Cousins and Thomas) and having several other quality players around them like Rudy Gay, etc.

 

[Rob-The-Great]

Your not getting a better top 5 pick that fox. If he doesn't become a allstar it's the Kings fault. He has all the talent of a star. We need to get I to playoffs. Trade Barnes, Holmes, buddy. That's it

Raiders. My other misery team finally squeeked into playoffs only to lose today, and that's ok. The streak is broken. Guess what expectations are next year....playoffs! And that is how you start building your expectations and culture. If they lost just one game, and didn't make playoffs. All heads would have rolled, new qb, new coach..still can happen, and perhaps another dreadful season.

Now, the expectations have been lifted and all next year they can claim they are a playoff team and can compete. The confidence with that statement is what kings desperately need

 

[kb02]

Honest question. If Vivek approved doing so, do you honestly think he would have the stomach to carry it all the way through?

That needs to be taken into account also.

McNair is a stats dude as is Hinkie, so, yes, absolutely so.

 

[kb02]

You really think Philly is happy with Simmons pouting and sitting out with a "fake" disability (or a legit medical issue, but you seem to discount that opinion)? Also, that was in the East where until very recently it has been comically easy to get into the PO - heck the Kings record would have gotten them in there a few times IIRC.

Which we have anyways (sucked), despite having 5 top 5 picks plus a bunch more top 10 picks in over just a decade, including drafting two all-stars during that time (Cousins and Thomas) and having several other quality players around them like Rudy Gay, etc.

I know Philly is happy that they have two elite talents on the roster and have been in the playoffs the last few years. I also know the Kings and Kings fans are tired of 15 years of sucking.

I’m not qualified to comment on mental health issues, which may or may not be real. And if real, certainly not qualified to determine its severity, whether its permanent, temporary, or chronic.

 

[whozit]

McNair is a stats dude as is Hinkie, so, yes, absolutely so.

Okay. I disagree and I think I have history, his history, on my side.

How many GM's, coaches has he burned through? How many times has he turned his team over? When has he ever accepted the history that you hire your GM and then let him hire his coach? When has he recognized that the best organizations have synergy between the Front Office and coaching staff yet he insists of putting snakes in the grass. Vlade was a "consultant" just like Dumars is now.

McNair may be a stats guy but that has nothing to do with Vivek's patience to see something through. Vivek hasn't shown the patience to date. Here is to hoping McNair can make some sweet lemonade because Vivek is as sour a Lemon you could have as an owner.

 

[kb02]

Okay. I disagree and I think I have history, his history, on my side.

How many GM's, coaches has he burned through? How many times has he turned his team over? When has he ever accepted the history that you hire your GM and then let him hire his coach? When has he recognized that the best organizations have synergy between the Front Office and coaching staff yet he insists of putting snakes in the grass. Vlade was a "consultant" just like Dumars is now.

McNair may be a stats guy but that has nothing to do with Vivek's patience to see something through. Vivek hasn't shown the patience to date. Here is to hoping McNair can make some sweet lemonade because Vivek is as sour a Lemon you could have as an owner.

I read your question as do I think McNair has the stomach to carry it through. Re-read it. My answer was in regards to McNair.

As for Vivek, I don’t know. I do know he ain’t hurting for money with his PE and Venture side gigs. And the make up of the ownership group is changing from individuals to I think 10% PEs now. Money won’t be a big issue for him or the PEs, who usually have a 5 to 10 year (or longer) horizon. So maybe.

 

[sactowndog]

Here's one:


Also, continuously reposting the chart sure seems to "hint" that it's a guarantee at the top - just have a losing record and you're golden, right?

As far as that we should just blow it up and rebuild with picks? How about the OP?



Or this:



Or this:



There's just a few examples from early in this thread alone, and I'm not about to go hunting for more.

Let me be extra clear. I said “good” GMs not “all GM’s”.

 

[ESP47]

Here's one:


Also, continuously reposting the chart sure seems to "hint" that it's a guarantee at the top - just have a losing record and you're golden, right?

As far as that we should just blow it up and rebuild with picks? How about the OP?



Or this:



Or this:



There's just a few examples from early in this thread alone, and I'm not about to go hunting for more.

Why are you still doubling down on this? None of these examples even prove your point. It's impossible to prove your point because you aren't arguing with a stance that anyone here has taken.

 

[The_Jamal]

Here's one:


Also, continuously reposting the chart sure seems to "hint" that it's a guarantee at the top - just have a losing record and you're golden, right?

As far as that we should just blow it up and rebuild with picks? How about the OP?



Or this:



Or this:



There's just a few examples from early in this thread alone, and I'm not about to go hunting for more.

?????

Where did I suggest that tanking guarantees you anything? I said if you sold everyone off, you'd have an actual warchest of assets to give yourself a real shot at a franchise changing talent. It's frustrating how disingenuous you're being with everyone "opposing" your point of view.

All people on my side have claimed is more shots at a top 5 pick is the best way to finding an elite franchise cornerstone talent. What the hell is so "wrong" about that?

 

[The_Jamal]

I know Philly is happy that they have two elite talents on the roster and have been in the playoffs the last few years. I also know the Kings and Kings fans are tired of 15 years of sucking.

I’m not qualified to comment on mental health issues, which may or may not be real. And if real, certainly not qualified to determine its severity, whether its permanent, temporary, or chronic.

Philly has clearly been a top 7-8 team the last 4 NBA season. But somehow that's worse than our situation? Because they "dishonorably" tanked for Simmons/Embiid?

 

[kb02]

Philly has clearly been a top 7-8 team the last 4 NBA season. But somehow that's worse than our situation? Because they "dishonorably" tanked for Simmons/Embiid?

Im sure the Philly org and Philly fans would choose Sac’s situation over theirs.