Now that this poster has admitted to being a troll can we ignore him/her/it?
Be careful what you wish for
- Thread starter Stroms
- Start date
gunks
Hall of Famer
Putting up a 30/20 game in college isnt dominant?
I watch Durant's games on ESPN. He's really good. Does a lot of things. I saw threes, I think half hooks, fade-aways. His stats are really good at times, but I think there was at least a game in which his great stats didn't win the game. I thought Dajuan Wagner scoring 100pts in high school was dominant but as someone on this board pointed out, he was a bust colon or no colon.
Jerryaki
Starter
oden's offensively okay...but he's playing with one hand.
durant draws comparisons to kevin garnett. everyone who watches him play raves about him. and this isn't cannon, but bill simmons practically drools over this kid for the celtics this year, and i'd say he's a fairly knowledgeable NBA fan.
the point is, while this draft may "only" have two superstars in oden and durant, they have multiple guys with solid talent. and that talent can be developed, can be harnessed, into a cornerstone of a team. why isn't that something you would want???
THIS TEAM AS IT STANDS HAS NO ONE OF SUPERSTAR POTENTIAL. NO CORNERSTONE. NO IDENTITY.
Vlade4GM
All-Star
i really like brandan wright's potential, but the team who picks him will probably have to wait. he's like bosh, but probably a year or two behind where he was.
kennadog
Dog On It!
Yes, you can add the person to your "ignore" list. Then you won't even see their posts.
kyo2002: No one called you ignorant as far as I can tell. But at this point, I have to think you are deliberately misunderstanding what the so-called "tankers" argument is.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with deliberately, on purpose, losing games. So everytime you start with that premise, just who are you debating with?
Yeah I like Brandan Wright a lot too. He reminds me more of Amare than Bosh though, but he's left handed like Bosh.
The board does quite well, thank you, without newbies intentionally stirring the pot "to make it interesting."
slugking50
All-Star
< In the voice of Howard Cosell from Foreman vs Frazier in 1973> DOWN GOES FRAZIER!! DOWN GOES FRAZIER!!DOWN GOES FRAZIER!!!
Last edited:
I'm just curious if anyone has any plans should tanking not net the Kings Durant or preferably Oden. I haven't heard and seen enough of players like Horford, Wright, and Thabeet who are more probable picks seeing as Celtics are winning the race---Noah should've declared last year though. How exactly does this Kings team build around Oden or the other players if they get rid of all their veterans? I'm seeing visions of Sixers, Celtics, Hawks, Blazers, and Bobcats based on the comments I'm seeing.
Thank you BudWright. There is a difference between tanking and throwing, but I haven't seen any solid plans about rebuilding, just speculations based on past teams and a lot of history. I've been called newbie and of all things "it" and "troll" but people are entitled to name-calling.
Thank you BudWright. There is a difference between tanking and throwing, but I haven't seen any solid plans about rebuilding, just speculations based on past teams and a lot of history. I've been called newbie and of all things "it" and "troll" but people are entitled to name-calling.
Jerryaki
Starter
you can search for posts by slim, brick, and a bunch of other posters who i cannot name off the top of my head right now.
they've come up with rather detailed ways that the team could improve. try to create some cap space, keep some vets who would be good in a rebuild/tutoring role, but most importantly, try and find a franchise player.
how do you propose the team improve with no cap space and a low draft number? if you can get a solid answer to that, let me know; i'll build a time machine, warp you back three years, and you can present it to petrie. because this cycle of doing patchwork has been going on for THREE years, and it has GOT to stop!
uolj
Starter
A bunch of detailed plans have been laid out, mostly in the Personnel moves forum. Have you had a chance to read those?
Also, Mr. S£im Citrus's post quoted above talks about how this draft is different from the Duncan draft because it is deeper than the top one or two players. That talk is there because most of the people in favor of heading into the lottery know that the chances of getting either of the top two is still small, and it is still a good idea. I don't know why you think people are only jonesing for those two guys.
By the way, a quick rebuild plan: trade away talented but older players now for cap relief, young players and draft picks. The team wins fewer games and gets a higher pick. The team drafts somebody. The team then assesses its situation by looking at its young players strengths and weaknesses, specifically that of the young potential star they draft in the lottery, and fills in the gap around those talents with the cap space and any remaining talented but older players.
As always, the bottom line is not to find the sure path to a championship, it is to find the best path. Re-building right now looks like the best path, and the most likely way to get a championship contending team again.
Last edited:
kupman
Starter
Okay, I am going to try and suggest a much more middle ground and empirical approach to this matter.
To begin:
You cannot really just list the success stories and assert that it proves your point and it is the end of the discussion. You can't do that anymore than another person could list the 'failure' stories (David Thompson, Ralph Sampson, Purvis Ellison etc) and assert that they are correct and the discussion is over.
It would be interesting to me if somebody could come along and devise and run a regression analysis (or 2 or 3) to look for the relative strength or weakness in the relationship between high draft picks and future success (i.e. games won in next 10 years or playoff games won in next 10 years). A regression analysis could really shed some some light on the various hypotheses running around here.
To begin:
You cannot really just list the success stories and assert that it proves your point and it is the end of the discussion. You can't do that anymore than another person could list the 'failure' stories (David Thompson, Ralph Sampson, Purvis Ellison etc) and assert that they are correct and the discussion is over.
It would be interesting to me if somebody could come along and devise and run a regression analysis (or 2 or 3) to look for the relative strength or weakness in the relationship between high draft picks and future success (i.e. games won in next 10 years or playoff games won in next 10 years). A regression analysis could really shed some some light on the various hypotheses running around here.
Cool, thanks uolj for making things more clear. I haven't looked into the free agency market yet should the Kings decide to create cap space. Plus, I hear people wishing for Bibby to opt out. SAR and Salmons looks to be staying here for a long time though and no one wants Larry Hughes. I've read a little in the personnel section.
It's clear that to rebuild you get rid of vets and draft young. Yet, I'm confident Petrie isn't looking to build through the draft ie look for that center-piece. He's already getting pieces for a new team. The Kings looks like a field of SGs and SFs that can create a lot of mismatches by either being too quick or too strong. Defensively, they have to hussle and create turnovers, but they can switch on every pick. Perhaps even play full court press all the time with a 15 man of SG and SF rotation...somehow reminds me of the Hawks; I don't see a passing game in this style. Perhaps use picks to create mismatches and taking advantage by going one on one like Dallas. However, one on one hasn't worked well for the Kings and at this point I'm saying play triangle offense and invent triangle defense or have Petrie himself coach the team because Musselman doesn't seem to have an offensive scheme in mind. I'm thinking that drafting good prospect isn't enough, they have to play in the right system, and Petrie is trying the Chicago Bulls method of winning without a bigman, except he doesn't have Jordans. Anyone got Petrie's book on small ball or a basketball system?
kupman: you got a great point about picking and choosing your evidence. A scientific look into basketball drafting would be something quite nice. I'll also add that if somehow people can turn drafting players into a science then all teams will do great. There are other factors to consider in itself when addressing drafting; player mentality, background, intangibles, etc. There are other things such as the system, the ancient notion of Fortune, and I think most importanly how the game has changed and is still changing. PF are different now and players like Nash and Parker are creating havoc with the no handcheck.
It's clear that to rebuild you get rid of vets and draft young. Yet, I'm confident Petrie isn't looking to build through the draft ie look for that center-piece. He's already getting pieces for a new team. The Kings looks like a field of SGs and SFs that can create a lot of mismatches by either being too quick or too strong. Defensively, they have to hussle and create turnovers, but they can switch on every pick. Perhaps even play full court press all the time with a 15 man of SG and SF rotation...somehow reminds me of the Hawks; I don't see a passing game in this style. Perhaps use picks to create mismatches and taking advantage by going one on one like Dallas. However, one on one hasn't worked well for the Kings and at this point I'm saying play triangle offense and invent triangle defense or have Petrie himself coach the team because Musselman doesn't seem to have an offensive scheme in mind. I'm thinking that drafting good prospect isn't enough, they have to play in the right system, and Petrie is trying the Chicago Bulls method of winning without a bigman, except he doesn't have Jordans. Anyone got Petrie's book on small ball or a basketball system?
kupman: you got a great point about picking and choosing your evidence. A scientific look into basketball drafting would be something quite nice. I'll also add that if somehow people can turn drafting players into a science then all teams will do great. There are other factors to consider in itself when addressing drafting; player mentality, background, intangibles, etc. There are other things such as the system, the ancient notion of Fortune, and I think most importanly how the game has changed and is still changing. PF are different now and players like Nash and Parker are creating havoc with the no handcheck.
Last edited:
uolj
Starter
I think the point is that you if you tried to make a list of teams that are contending now or that have won in the past, that didn't draft a top 10 talent to get them there, the list would be much, much smaller.
It is not about the success versus failure of top 10 picks. It is about the success versus failure of teams drafting in the top 10 versus teams not drafting in the top 10.
Jerryaki
Starter
it'd be tough to run a regression on this, mainly because the equation can't factor in certain variables (e.g. injuries, spats with coaches, police arrests, etc.).
We've reached an important point here; can stats be used as a premise for an argument not to mention a scientific one? This will lead into whether stats exists as an entity. And using history as evidence, you can argue that drafting high gives you better odds, only that leads to a universal law or some kind of fate which is merely to be proven by cause and effect. Conclusion will indelibly be the same old question of whether we can step into the same river twice.
:
kupman
Starter
This is the point of the regression analysis: if a team drafts huge talent very high in the draft, how well does that translate to future team success given all the uncertanties of the basketball universe.
Jerryaki
Starter
the point of the regression analysis is to see how well the following model fits:
success rate/wins = A*(draft selection) + Error
the error term is too much all over the board here; there are too many variables to keep track of. furthermore, how do you quantify things like rule changes, tempo changes (as we are seeing, with everyone running like the suns), etc.?
kupman
Starter
I think that is the point of the regression - to see how well "A*(draft selection)" predicts future success compared to the error rate. Or to put it another way "how much of the variance in success can be associated to draft position compared to the error rate (the uncertainties of the basketball universe)?" Does draft position explain 2% of the variance or 95% of the variance, or (of course) somewhere in between?
I think that we may be talking about the same thing here, but just coming at it from two different angles. It should be possible to determine how much of the variance in 'success' is associated to draft position.
By what definition is Ralph Sampson a failure? He helped lead a team to the Finals. David Thompson? Why is he a failure?
thatguy
Bench
I'm glad the two of you started this...I found this link earlier today and didn't know where to put it so here it is http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1362
It doesn't speak to team success but rather the draftee's success after five years. The categories are debatable (I think) but it is interesting nonetheless.
It doesn't speak to team success but rather the draftee's success after five years. The categories are debatable (I think) but it is interesting nonetheless.
Big Cuz 15
All-Star
you load up on young talent, have free capspace to pull in a good vet or two to compliment the young talent. isn't that what the suns did when they pulled nash in to compliment their young bucks?
I've seen similar results (about the theoretical average draft year) here and elsewhere:
http://www.82games.com/nbadraft2.htm
The conclusion to be drawn is fairly obvious: that, while there are definitely some cases of stupidity or horrible luck, most managers do a fairly good job of picking the best players early on.
You can point to the cases of stupidity or bad luck all you want, but the general rule still holds.
http://www.82games.com/nbadraft2.htm
The conclusion to be drawn is fairly obvious: that, while there are definitely some cases of stupidity or horrible luck, most managers do a fairly good job of picking the best players early on.
You can point to the cases of stupidity or bad luck all you want, but the general rule still holds.
Last edited:
One thing worth noting that I haven't seen discussed much is that if we get into the top 5 range a number of teams that may be ahead of us have been collosally bad at evaluating talent. So if we don't get Oden or Durant I have more faith in Petrie than I would in Ainge or King picking 3-5 or slightly beyond. One of the reasons bad teams stay bad is because they make terrible picks or they trade away a good pick right before he develops. When an historically good team with competent management dips into the lottery they usually make the most of it and quickly rebound. I know some of us have shattered faith in Petrie but it seems almost certain that even a top 10 pick would expose us to more (potential) talent than he's been able to acquire in a trade or through free agency in recent seasons and that most of the people picking in that range are worse GMs and talent evaluators than Petrie.
Similar threads
- ClutchPoints | Sacramento Kings News
- Personnel moves
