Bagley just average - nothing more, nothing less (split)

[OptimusRhyme]

You're still completely ignoring that Toronto doesn't come close to a championship last year without Kawhi Leonard though. The most coveted free agent in the league is not an easy piece to find. Actually, it's nigh on impossible to find. Siakam hasn't proven anything yet other than he was a steal in the late first round. Let's see how far the team gets with him leading the show this year before anointing him as a sure thing. Kevin Love had 6 years to prove he could win a championship for a franchise and he couldn't do it. Once led the league in PER though. Anthony Davis and Chris Bosh both had 7 years of futility before throwing in the towel and hooking up with LeBron. The other guys you mentioned have never done it. Obviously there's still a path forward that results in a championship caliber team but having Bagley is maybe 10% of the equation and even accounting for Fox and Hield we're still missing 75% of it. (Give or take )

And even that isn't really true because we're talking about myths here. Has Sacramento ever had a physically dominant wing player that's remotely close to LeBron or Kawhi? Ever? Those are the types of players who don't come to Sacramento and who we refuse to invest draft picks on every year. The closest guy I can think of is Ron Artest and he had to get himself suspended for a whole year before that trade could happen. If he doesn't punch a fan in the face he's out of our league too. (Not) coincidentally, the last time we managed to scare anyone in the playoffs was the one year Artest was on the team and Rick Adelman was on the sideline. So we just need to get the type of player we've never been able to get, essentially. And pair him with a hall of fame coach.

Umm...

Wake me up when we have a plan that doesn't require a fairy godmother and a magic pumpkin. Knowing that other scoring bigs have won only when paired up with either the greatest player of this generation or a perennial defensive player of the year who tutored under a hall of fame coach and developed into an elite scorer is less than relevant because the odds of either of those situations occurring here are sub-atomic particle small. We've got better odds at colonizing the surface of the sun.

Siakim hasnt proven anything? He dominated in the playoffs! Dude rose up out of the G League out of nowhere and became a dominant force on an nba championship team. The first one Toronto has ever won. He won MIP last year! What more does he have to prove?
Also, Raps were actually an incredible team without Kawhi (17 wins 5 losses). Led by Siakim.

Who says the Kings need a Kawhi Leonard? they need player development, another great player and maybe a cuple playmakers/defenders. It dosent necessrily have to be the best two way player on the planet.

Raps found Van vleet undrafted and Siakim late in the draft. Both huge parts of their squad. Van Vleet was probably the most clutch player in the finals. Its not impossible to find differance makers.

Listen, I have faith in the team, Fox is gonna be amazing and Bagleys gonna be great.

What I saw from Bagley last year (last 25 games or so) was impressive af. I also have faith the Kings can find the missing links that can propel them to the next level.

 

[hrdboild]

Siakim hasnt proven anything? He dominated in the playoffs! Dude rose up out of the G League out of nowhere and became a dominant force on an nba championship team. The first one Toronto has ever won. He won MIP last year! What more does he have to prove?
Also, Raps were actually an incredible team without Kawhi (17 wins 5 losses). Led by Siakim.

Who says the Kings need a Kawhi Leonard? they need player development, another great player and maybe a cuple playmakers/defenders. It dosent necessrily have to be the best two way player on the planet.

Raps found Van vleet undrafted and Siakim late in the draft. Both huge parts of their squad. Van Vleet was probably the most clutch player in the finals. Its not impossible to find differance makers.

Listen, I have faith in the team, Fox is gonna be amazing and Bagleys gonna be great.

What I saw from Bagley last year (last 25 games or so) was impressive af. I also have faith the Kings can find the missing links that can propel them to the next level.

The original point I was making is that you listed four guys you hope Bagley will eventually compare to and none of them led a team to a championship. Amare Stoudemire and Blake Griffin are best case scenarios and they had ideal PG compliments in Steve Nash and Chris Paul. They won a lot of games in the regular season and failed in the playoffs year after year. I think this is a concern. The topic here is about whether Bagley is average or better. I think he's clearly better than average. But even if he is the next Anthony Davis, do we even want that? He put up video game numbers in New Orleans for 7 years and played in 13 playoff games total. He didn't have great teammates but he did have an All Star PG and guys who could shoot around him. This isn't the era where you draft an elite big guy and he punches your playoff ticket every year. Any team with any hope of a championship right now has an elite guard or wing player. Running the offense through a big guy is not working for anyone right now. That's not to say those guys don't matter, but they need to be looked at as second tier. Get past the per36 numbers and the artificially inflated PER and you have a group of paper tigers who aren't nearly as effective on the court as all the talking heads make them out to be.

Back to Toronto though, I didn't say that Siakam doesn't matter. He's a good player who's emerging as a star. But he did not lead Toronto in the playoffs, the guy who averaged 30 points per game and won Finals MVP did. Regular season wins don't indicate much. The Nash/Stoudemire Suns won a ton of regular season games but couldn't get to the Finals. And historically, the Most Improved Award goes to guys who are complimentary pieces not franchise players. Here's the last 15 of them before Siakam:

(2018) Victor Oladipo
(2017) Giannis Antetokuonmpo
(2016) CJ McCollum
(2015) Jimmy Butler
(2014) Goran Dragic
(2013) Paul George
(2012) Ryan Anderson
(2011) Kevin Love
(2010) Aaron Brooks
(2009) Danny Granger
(2008) Hedo Turkoglu
(2007) Monta Ellis
(2006) Boris Diaw
(2005) Bobby Simmons
(2004) Zach Randolph

There's one guy here who projects as a perennial MVP candidate. Other than Giannis, would you call any of them a franchise player? Every playoff team has complimentary players who are important. You need a DeAaron Fox and a Buddy Hield and a Marvin Bagley. But we're still missing the guy who makes everything else work: the MVP level player. A defensive role player is not getting it done. Other than Giannis, who plays PG for his team and does things no one else can do on a basketball court, there hasn't been a scoring big who won MVP for over a decade.

Let's say we get extremely lucky and get another top 5 pick this year. Most GMs are going to look at our roster and see Fox, Hield, Barnes, and Bagley and think we have 1 missing piece here, we need to draft a big guy to compliment what we've already built. So you look at the draft lottery and there's 6 or 7 guys we can't take cause they're redundant with Fox or Hield. There's another 4 or 5 wing players who are problematic because we've already invested in Harrison Barnes. That leaves 4 or 5 bigs to choose between but we probably want somebody who plays average or better defense to play next to Bagley right? So that limits the options even further....

This is how bad teams stay bad. Until we get that MVP level player, nothing else matters. If you're building a race car the most important part is the engine. Everything else is just tweaking to improve on that baseline performance. All I'm trying to say here is that guys like Bagley are not the engine anymore. They haven't been for 15 years. The game has changed to favor perimeter players. Going with the race car analogy, we can tweak all day long: we can add the best steering system, brakes, improve fuel efficiency, reduce drag etc. but if the engine ain't right none of that really matters.

 

[Kingster]

The original point I was making is that you listed four guys you hope Bagley will eventually compare to and none of them led a team to a championship. Amare Stoudemire and Blake Griffin are best case scenarios and they had ideal PG compliments in Steve Nash and Chris Paul. They won a lot of games in the regular season and failed in the playoffs year after year. I think this is a concern. The topic here is about whether Bagley is average or better. I think he's clearly better than average. But even if he is the next Anthony Davis, do we even want that? He put up video game numbers in New Orleans for 7 years and played in 13 playoff games total. He didn't have great teammates but he did have an All Star PG and guys who could shoot around him. This isn't the era where you draft an elite big guy and he punches your playoff ticket every year. Any team with any hope of a championship right now has an elite guard or wing player. Running the offense through a big guy is not working for anyone right now. That's not to say those guys don't matter, but they need to be looked at as second tier. Get past the per36 numbers and the artificially inflated PER and you have a group of paper tigers who aren't nearly as effective on the court as all the talking heads make them out to be.

Back to Toronto though, I didn't say that Siakam doesn't matter. He's a good player who's emerging as a star. But he did not lead Toronto in the playoffs, the guy who averaged 30 points per game and won Finals MVP did. Regular season wins don't indicate much. The Nash/Stoudemire Suns won a ton of regular season games but couldn't get to the Finals. And historically, the Most Improved Award goes to guys who are complimentary pieces not franchise players. Here's the last 15 of them before Siakam:

(2018) Victor Oladipo
(2017) Giannis Antetokuonmpo
(2016) CJ McCollum
(2015) Jimmy Butler
(2014) Goran Dragic
(2013) Paul George
(2012) Ryan Anderson
(2011) Kevin Love
(2010) Aaron Brooks
(2009) Danny Granger
(2008) Hedo Turkoglu
(2007) Monta Ellis
(2006) Boris Diaw
(2005) Bobby Simmons
(2004) Zach Randolph

There's one guy here who projects as a perennial MVP candidate. Other than Giannis, would you call any of them a franchise player? Every playoff team has complimentary players who are important. You need a DeAaron Fox and a Buddy Hield and a Marvin Bagley. But we're still missing the guy who makes everything else work: the MVP level player. A defensive role player is not getting it done. Other than Giannis, who plays PG for his team and does things no one else can do on a basketball court, there hasn't been a scoring big who won MVP for over a decade.

Let's say we get extremely lucky and get another top 5 pick this year. Most GMs are going to look at our roster and see Fox, Hield, Barnes, and Bagley and think we have 1 missing piece here, we need to draft a big guy to compliment what we've already built. So you look at the draft lottery and there's 6 or 7 guys we can't take cause they're redundant with Fox or Hield. There's another 4 or 5 wing players who are problematic because we've already invested in Harrison Barnes. That leaves 4 or 5 bigs to choose between but we probably want somebody who plays average or better defense to play next to Bagley right? So that limits the options even further....

This is how bad teams stay bad. Until we get that MVP level player, nothing else matters. If you're building a race car the most important part is the engine. Everything else is just tweaking to improve on that baseline performance. All I'm trying to say here is that guys like Bagley are not the engine anymore. They haven't been for 15 years. The game has changed to favor perimeter players. Going with the race car analogy, we can tweak all day long: we can add the best steering system, brakes, improve fuel efficiency, reduce drag etc. but if the engine ain't right none of that really matters.

So all you want is a young LBJ or Leonard and you're good to go?

 

[kb02]

It's not fair to highlight a player like Siakam as evidence for the Raptors drafting without including Bruno Cabocolo, Jakob Poetl,and Deleon Wright. That's a 25% hit rate on first rounders.

And when you factor in the reality that most lotto picks are busts, the rest are average, and only a few (usually top 3 picks) become all stars, Vlade's hit rate is within one deviation of average--to the plus side.

 

[LPKingsFan]

The original point I was making is that you listed four guys you hope Bagley will eventually compare to and none of them led a team to a championship. Amare Stoudemire and Blake Griffin are best case scenarios and they had ideal PG compliments in Steve Nash and Chris Paul. They won a lot of games in the regular season and failed in the playoffs year after year. I think this is a concern. The topic here is about whether Bagley is average or better. I think he's clearly better than average. But even if he is the next Anthony Davis, do we even want that? He put up video game numbers in New Orleans for 7 years and played in 13 playoff games total. He didn't have great teammates but he did have an All Star PG and guys who could shoot around him. This isn't the era where you draft an elite big guy and he punches your playoff ticket every year. Any team with any hope of a championship right now has an elite guard or wing player. Running the offense through a big guy is not working for anyone right now. That's not to say those guys don't matter, but they need to be looked at as second tier. Get past the per36 numbers and the artificially inflated PER and you have a group of paper tigers who aren't nearly as effective on the court as all the talking heads make them out to be.

Back to Toronto though, I didn't say that Siakam doesn't matter. He's a good player who's emerging as a star. But he did not lead Toronto in the playoffs, the guy who averaged 30 points per game and won Finals MVP did. Regular season wins don't indicate much. The Nash/Stoudemire Suns won a ton of regular season games but couldn't get to the Finals. And historically, the Most Improved Award goes to guys who are complimentary pieces not franchise players. Here's the last 15 of them before Siakam:

(2018) Victor Oladipo
(2017) Giannis Antetokuonmpo
(2016) CJ McCollum
(2015) Jimmy Butler
(2014) Goran Dragic
(2013) Paul George
(2012) Ryan Anderson
(2011) Kevin Love
(2010) Aaron Brooks
(2009) Danny Granger
(2008) Hedo Turkoglu
(2007) Monta Ellis
(2006) Boris Diaw
(2005) Bobby Simmons
(2004) Zach Randolph

There's one guy here who projects as a perennial MVP candidate. Other than Giannis, would you call any of them a franchise player? Every playoff team has complimentary players who are important. You need a DeAaron Fox and a Buddy Hield and a Marvin Bagley. But we're still missing the guy who makes everything else work: the MVP level player. A defensive role player is not getting it done. Other than Giannis, who plays PG for his team and does things no one else can do on a basketball court, there hasn't been a scoring big who won MVP for over a decade.

Let's say we get extremely lucky and get another top 5 pick this year. Most GMs are going to look at our roster and see Fox, Hield, Barnes, and Bagley and think we have 1 missing piece here, we need to draft a big guy to compliment what we've already built. So you look at the draft lottery and there's 6 or 7 guys we can't take cause they're redundant with Fox or Hield. There's another 4 or 5 wing players who are problematic because we've already invested in Harrison Barnes. That leaves 4 or 5 bigs to choose between but we probably want somebody who plays average or better defense to play next to Bagley right? So that limits the options even further....

This is how bad teams stay bad. Until we get that MVP level player, nothing else matters. If you're building a race car the most important part is the engine. Everything else is just tweaking to improve on that baseline performance. All I'm trying to say here is that guys like Bagley are not the engine anymore. They haven't been for 15 years. The game has changed to favor perimeter players. Going with the race car analogy, we can tweak all day long: we can add the best steering system, brakes, improve fuel efficiency, reduce drag etc. but if the engine ain't right none of that really matters.

By looking at just the teams that won, you’re limiting the sample such that I’m not sure the conclusions are all that meaningful. A different bounce and maybe it’s the Embiid-led Sixers that win it all.

 

[hrdboild]

So all you want is a young LBJ or Leonard and you're good to go?

That would be a good start!

 

[rosa u podne]

It's not fair to highlight a player like Siakam as evidence for the Raptors drafting without including Bruno Cabocolo, Jakob Poetl,and Deleon Wright. That's a 25% hit rate on first rounders.

And when you factor in the reality that most lotto picks are busts, the rest are average, and only a few (usually top 3 picks) become all stars, Vlade's hit rate is within one deviation of average--to the plus side.

I don't have a problem with bad picks (apart from Papa), it happens. I have a problem that Vlade never hits, apart from the one obvious pick (Fox).

 

[hrdboild]

By looking at just the teams that won, you’re limiting the sample such that I’m not sure the conclusions are all that meaningful. A different bounce and maybe it’s the Embiid-led Sixers that win it all.

Trace it back to my original comment. I'm not selecting a limited sample to make a point, I'm just commenting about the guys that were mentioned earlier in this thread. Guys like Kevin Love and Amare Stoudamire and Blake Griffin put up big numbers and sold tickets but other than that they just led their teams to dead ends. I don't think any of them deserve to be in the same category as Shaq or Duncan or Hakeem -- the true franchise players. And I'm not even sure that any of the current bigs in the league are in that category either. Joel Embiid might be, it's too early to say yet.

 

[rosa u podne]

The original point I was making is that you listed four guys you hope Bagley will eventually compare to and none of them led a team to a championship.

...

But we're still missing the guy who makes everything else work: the MVP level player.

...

Until we get that MVP level player, nothing else matters. If you're building a race car the most important part is the engine. Everything else is just tweaking to improve on that baseline performance. All I'm trying to say here is that guys like Bagley are not the engine anymore. They haven't been for 15 years. The game has changed to favor perimeter players. Going with the race car analogy, we can tweak all day long: we can add the best steering system, brakes, improve fuel efficiency, reduce drag etc. but if the engine ain't right none of that really matters.

I have a few objections.

1. If you are happy only when your team wins the championship, you are rooting for the wrong team. That never happened in the Sacramento era for the franchise, as you know. However, I enjoyed the golden era team. I am sad they don't have a ring, but I loved that team, enjoyed them at the time and have great memories. I also loved the way Stockton and Malone played, Barkley etc. None of them win it all, but their teams were competitive and exciting to watch.

2. Detroit Pistons won the ship without an MVP player. Some might argue, that they did it twice. The golden age Kings did not have a MVP. Chris Webber was close but still did not have a chance against Shaque, Kobe, Garnet, Duncan, Stockton, Malone.

To summarize, I agree that you should draft BPA, but if it is not MVP level, so be it. Also, winning championship would be for me cheery on the top, not the ultimate goal. I want a competitive team, playing exciting team basketball and a few PO runs.

 

[hrdboild]

I have a few objections.

1. If you are happy only when your team wins the championship, you are rooting for the wrong team. That never happened in the Sacramento era for the franchise, as you know. However, I enjoyed the golden era team. I am sad they don't have a ring, but I loved that team, enjoyed them at the time and have great memories. I also loved the way Stockton and Malone played, Barkley etc. None of them win it all, but their teams were competitive and exciting to watch.

2. Detroit Pistons won the ship without an MVP player. Some might argue, that they did it twice. The golden age Kings did not have a MVP. Chris Webber was close but still did not have a chance against Shaque, Kobe, Garnet, Duncan, Stockton, Malone.

To summarize, I agree that you should draft BPA, but if it is not MVP level, so be it. Also, winning championship would be for me cheery on the top, not the ultimate goal. I want a competitive team, playing exciting team basketball and a few PO runs.

That's fair. I'm not going to tell anyone else what they can and can't enjoy. I'm just coming from the perspective of this being a game. The object of a game is to use all resources available to you to win, within the confines of the agreed upon rules. If you're playing for 4th or 5th place you're not really playing the game. It's not that I'm only happy with a championship, I just want a modest level of competency and the pretense of actually trying. The Oakland A's haven't won a championship since 1989 and I still enjoy watching them every year. The last SF 49er championship was 1995 and there have been several years where they tested my patience as well but both teams are at least in the game. They're making measurable progress year to year and making enough decisions that are defensible that I can forgive most of the poor ones.

But sure, it's also a business and the goal of a business is to make money. Having a team that maybe sneaks into the playoffs without ever really contending is probably better for business than continually rebuilding until you know that you have a franchise player. I don't root for businesses though. As entertainment, I can't personally enjoy watching a team that isn't playing to win regardless of how they play. The draft is a part of the game too. Free agency and trades are a part of the game. We're losing ground every year in all aspects and while there are players on this team that I enjoy watching, if there's little or no hope of it leading anywhere significant I can't bring myself to care. And if you bounce around the league and watch what everybody is doing then come back to the Kings, the difference is glaring. I don't need to watch the Kings to enjoy watching basketball. Between college, the NBA, and international leagues there's plenty to watch. But this is the team I grew up with and I want to see them succeed. Especially for all the fans still trying to chase away the ghost of the 2002 playoffs.

You brought up the Pistons and that early 2000's team that won the Finals in 2004 was one of my favorite teams of the last 20 years. For a brief period of time they were a dominant forceI would argue that they did have an MVP. That team wasn't built to outscore people, it was built to stop other teams from scoring and Ben Wallace won 4 Defensive Player of the Year awards in 5 years. That's an MVP to me. He may not have technically won the MVP award but that's because the voters overwhelming reward scorers. If you're dominating the defensive end of the floor so thoroughly that you win 4 DPOY awards in 5 years, you qualify as an MVP I think.

 

[ESP47]

For the sake of the argument, I dont think VORP is intended to be used that way. Im not super familiar with the stat, but the definition is that it measures a player's value over other "replacement-level" players, not as a tool to make comparisons with. Even if im wrong and youre using it properly, youre talking about a difference of 1.9 on a range of VORP values that reaches the 100's. The difference in VORP between Davis and Bagley is comparable to the difference between Tim Duncan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

I think you may be confusing the stat with something else. They don't go into the 100s. Lebron's best VORP for a single season was 11.6 and these days he averages around 7 or 8 per season. VORP can be compared more accurately when you're comparing them across equal teams. Harrison Barnes' VORP was the best when he was on the Warriors. He topped out at 1.8 with the Ws and hasn't had a season higher than 0.1 since (although he's already at 0.2 this year). His game was elevated a ton by his teammates in Golden State but he also played his best basketball that one season as well.

To be fair, New Orleans only had 27 wins during AD's first season, so his rookie season is actually a bit better than even the VORP indicates. It's not at all comparable to the difference between Duncan and Jabbar. It's more like Rudy Gay to Quincy Acy when they were on the Kings.

 

[Sactown ExPat]

That's fair. I'm not going to tell anyone else what they can and can't enjoy. I'm just coming from the perspective of this being a game. The object of a game is to use all resources available to you to win, within the confines of the agreed upon rules. If you're playing for 4th or 5th place you're not really playing the game. It's not that I'm only happy with a championship, I just want a modest level of competency and the pretense of actually trying. The Oakland A's haven't won a championship since 1989 and I still enjoy watching them every year. The last SF 49er championship was 1995 and there have been several years where they tested my patience as well but both teams are at least in the game. They're making measurable progress year to year and making enough decisions that are defensible that I can forgive most of the poor ones.

But sure, it's also a business and the goal of a business is to make money. Having a team that maybe sneaks into the playoffs without ever really contending is probably better for business than continually rebuilding until you know that you have a franchise player. I don't root for businesses though. As entertainment, I can't personally enjoy watching a team that isn't playing to win regardless of how they play. The draft is a part of the game too. Free agency and trades are a part of the game. We're losing ground every year in all aspects and while there are players on this team that I enjoy watching, if there's little or no hope of it leading anywhere significant I can't bring myself to care. And if you bounce around the league and watch what everybody is doing then come back to the Kings, the difference is glaring. I don't need to watch the Kings to enjoy watching basketball. Between college, the NBA, and international leagues there's plenty to watch. But this is the team I grew up with and I want to see them succeed. Especially for all the fans still trying to chase away the ghost of the 2002 playoffs.

You brought up the Pistons and that early 2000's team that won the Finals in 2004 was one of my favorite teams of the last 20 years. For a brief period of time they were a dominant forceI would argue that they did have an MVP. That team wasn't built to outscore people, it was built to stop other teams from scoring and Ben Wallace won 4 Defensive Player of the Year awards in 5 years. That's an MVP to me. He may not have technically won the MVP award but that's because the voters overwhelming reward scorers. If you're dominating the defensive end of the floor so thoroughly that you win 4 DPOY awards in 5 years, you qualify as an MVP I think.

I understand the desire to compete, but who are all these teams in the NBA making super-decisive moves to win championships? I concede Ujiri did with Toronto, but he was also going to blow that team up if they lost in the 2nd round again. Kawhi was hail mary—and a horrible, horrible trade by the Spurs. Speaking of, talk about a team just happy to make the playoffs since Timmy retired. They’re just treading water. Because, no one talks about it, but their support will crater quickly if they start rebuilding. They haven’t had a true rebuild since the 80s.

 

[tyguy]

Drafting big men with high picks has been like taking a running back with a high pick for some time now. Quality bigs are continually found after the lottery and even into the 20's and second round. There are some outliers of course, but a big truly has to be special to take him very high in my opinion.

 

[mac]

I understand the desire to compete, but who are all these teams in the NBA making super-decisive moves to win championships? I concede Ujiri did with Toronto, but he was also going to blow that team up if they lost in the 2nd round again. Kawhi was hail mary—and a horrible, horrible trade by the Spurs. Speaking of, talk about a team just happy to make the playoffs since Timmy retired. They’re just treading water. Because, no one talks about it, but their support will crater quickly if they start rebuilding. They haven’t had a true rebuild since the 80s.

Well I think when you've had as long a run as they've had you're entitled to a longer leash to turn things around. Heck people still think we're a few years away from playoffs.

 

[hrdboild]

I understand the desire to compete, but who are all these teams in the NBA making super-decisive moves to win championships? I concede Ujiri did with Toronto, but he was also going to blow that team up if they lost in the 2nd round again. Kawhi was hail mary—and a horrible, horrible trade by the Spurs. Speaking of, talk about a team just happy to make the playoffs since Timmy retired. They’re just treading water. Because, no one talks about it, but their support will crater quickly if they start rebuilding. They haven’t had a true rebuild since the 80s.

It's more of a general aura of respectability than bold and decisive action. Most other teams are either strongly in the "going for it" category or they're clearly in the early stages of a rebuild and they have a style of play and roster that aligns with those goals. There are a few other teams that are nearly as puzzling as ours though. New York has a roster that doesn't make any sense for actual basketball games. Washington is trapped into mediocrity but they haven't had the coaching turnover that we have. Orlando looks like they're just throwing darts at a board blindfolded and hoping for the best. All of these teams have talent, but it's difficult to discern how they're going to grow or fit the pieces together. So no, it's not just us. But 3/4ths of the teams have a clear team direction that seems logical. I've also gotten really tired of the TV team talking up every Kings move as if it's a work of genius regardless of how many of them fail and then bad mouthing the players as soon as they're gone. It's embarrassing and it just adds to the pervasive negativity. If you need to keep telling people over and over again how smart you are, you're probably not as smart as you think.

The NBA does have a parity problem though, probably more than any other major sports league in the US, and that's something that the Sacramento front office can't control. It's much easier for a single superstar player to dominate a basketball game because there's only 5 players on each team and they play both sides of the ball. The salary cap means endorsement money is how players make a significant chunk of their salary and that funnels players into larger markets. 14 of the last 20 championships have come from 5 teams (LA, Golden State, San Antonio, Boston, Dallas) and only 1 of them isn't a top 10 media market. Since 1960, 41 out of 60 championship trophies have also gone to a group of 5 teams (Boston, LA,, Golden State, Chicago, San Antonio) and only 1 of those teams isn't a top 10 media market. In both cases the exception is San Antonio which is the rare team that has been able to sustain success for two decades with the same coach and front office staff. A big part of their success stems from stringing together 2 first overall picks a decade apart into 2 hall of fame big men which is not a repeatable strategy. They were still in good shape post-Duncan though thanks to Kawhi until his knee issues started and Gregg Popovich decided he'd had enough and started bad mouthing him at press conferences...

San Antonio does prove though that small markets can win in the NBA if everything breaks right. If you spend your draft capitol wisely, find players that fit a style of play instead of changing things up every few years, consistently support the coach over player egos, and stay ahead of the curve on player scouting you can put yourself in a position to win multiple championships. You have to understand though that you're already at a severe disadvantage in a small market so it's only going to work if you do things differently. Clearing out cap space so you can splurge on free agents, for example, is never going to work. Waiting for draft luck to strike could take decades (as we know too well). There's no quick fixes when you make a mistake. Being the GM of a small market NBA team is probably one of the toughest jobs in sports. Dozens have failed. Only a small handful have succeeded. So I get that mistakes will be made and I can forgive a lot poor decision-making to a certain extant if they would just admit when they're wrong! It's the arrogance more than anything else which has made things unpalatable for me.

 

[Chupacabra]

I think you may be confusing the stat with something else. They don't go into the 100s. Lebron's best VORP for a single season was 11.6 and these days he averages around 7 or 8 per season. VORP can be compared more accurately when you're comparing them across equal teams. Harrison Barnes' VORP was the best when he was on the Warriors. He topped out at 1.8 with the Ws and hasn't had a season higher than 0.1 since (although he's already at 0.2 this year). His game was elevated a ton by his teammates in Golden State but he also played his best basketball that one season as well.

To be fair, New Orleans only had 27 wins during AD's first season, so his rookie season is actually a bit better than even the VORP indicates. It's not at all comparable to the difference between Duncan and Jabbar. It's more like Rudy Gay to Quincy Acy when they were on the Kings.

When we use VORP to compare Davis and Bagley, are we not comparing two players that are on 2 different teams that are not comparable? If yes, isnt VORP an inappropriate tool of comparison?

 

[ESP47]

When we use VORP to compare Davis and Bagley, are we not comparing two players that are on 2 different teams that are not comparable? If yes, isnt VORP an inappropriate tool of comparison?

Not at all. I really don't know why you think it's not comparable. If player A is way better than a replacement player and player B is marginally better than a replacement player, how are you unable to determine from that logic that you can't say player A is better than player B?

 

[fansinceday1]

different sport but MAYBE it could apply to the kings in the future if they so choose?

The Oakland A’s know who they are. They are a glorified AAA franchise. So they have what is arguably the best scouting dept in baseball. They continually pull out gems from the MLB draft. They scout other franchises like crazy and nab prospects that other franchises miss on. They have had crazy good chemistry for a long time now which is attractive to some lower end free agents. Some of those 2nd tier FA have turned out to be great fits and have turned into unbelievable value signings. Since they are a small market team who plays in the worst stadium in the league they know the draft and minor leagues are where their bread and butter is and they have to be good in those areas to be competitive. They have been extremely smart when they have paid out a larger FA contract. Of course they have had misses but they tend not to set the team back too much.

The kings know who they are and just have to embrace it. They need to start with a mad scientist GM (Billy Beane) and build out from there. Find the best scouts and make this an attractive place to play again. I’d love for the kings to be as competitive and exciting as the Oakland A’s. I know in my gut the A’s probably aren’t gonna make it to a World Series but I know they will be competitive and exciting. And who knows, they may get lucky one of these years.

 

[NME]

We're the opposite of Moneyball.