Better pick? Doncic or Bagley? split from Vlade thread ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
Passes on hall of fame caliber wing, team under his watch enters the lottery without a pick due to a previous trade that at no point anybody thought was good for the Kings. Gets extended because the bar is soo incredibly low in Sacramento. I know a lot of his moves haven't been bad, but two moves he made were absolutely critical that he failed on which lowers the potential of this team going forward.
The consensus on the internet was that the Kings were going to be the worst team in the league. The consensus on the internet was that the Kings were idiots for passing on a hall of fame caliber wing. It's consistent with the national story that the Kings are and always will be a joke.

The internet missed by a mile on the first one, and now you come here with the second one and think that's a credible argument? You're going to need more than that if you want to be taken seriously here.
 
#2
The consensus on the internet was that the Kings were going to be the worst team in the league. The consensus on the internet was that the Kings were idiots for passing on a hall of fame caliber wing. It's consistent with the national story that the Kings are and always will be a joke.

The internet missed by a mile on the first one, and now you come here with the second one and think that's a credible argument? You're going to need more than that if you want to be taken seriously here.
Ad populum is a fallacy, but furthermore just because the kings played higher than expectations doesn't mean they would have been better off making different decisions.

Is there a rebuttal to why the trade to free up cap space to sign rondo and belinelli was a good trade? Because neither guy is currently on our roster, and more importantly weren't good enough to give up pick swaps and a lottery pick. It's never good to be the team in the lottery without their pick.

As far as Doncic goes we passed on the better player full stop. The numbers bear that out right now, and just because Bagley will be a plus player doesn't mean it was a mistake to pass on the superior player. We can acknowledge Vlade has done good and bad. It doesn't need to be black and white; there are more colors on the spectrum.

I just happen to believe passing on a talent like Doncic was a critical failure and making a trade previously that removed a draft pick from us when we are still in the lottery is a huge blow. We are passing on the opportunity to add a cheap young rotation piece to our roster. I don't see how this could be hand waived or rationalized as fine, but i wouldn't mind seeing counter arguments.
 
#3
Ad populum is a fallacy, but furthermore just because the kings played higher than expectations doesn't mean they would have been better off making different decisions.

Is there a rebuttal to why the trade to free up cap space to sign rondo and belinelli was a good trade? Because neither guy is currently on our roster, and more importantly weren't good enough to give up pick swaps and a lottery pick. It's never good to be the team in the lottery without their pick.

As far as Doncic goes we passed on the better player full stop. The numbers bear that out right now, and just because Bagley will be a plus player doesn't mean it was a mistake to pass on the superior player. We can acknowledge Vlade has done good and bad. It doesn't need to be black and white; there are more colors on the spectrum.

I just happen to believe passing on a talent like Doncic was a critical failure and making a trade previously that removed a draft pick from us when we are still in the lottery is a huge blow. We are passing on the opportunity to add a cheap young rotation piece to our roster. I don't see how this could be hand waived or rationalized as fine, but i wouldn't mind seeing counter arguments.
sunk cost and appeal to probability are also fallacies. it would be hard for any of us to form any type of argument that passes logic/philosophy rigor about an undetermined event in the future (was extending Vlade the right move). it comes down to human intuition and whether you trust Vlade to lead the organization. Even though the two examples you use are logical fallacies as far as determining whether to keep Vlade, I can see why your intuition might lead you to think he is not the right man. For me, I think as long as the team is making improvements and it looks like there is a vision we are working towards, I am willing to give him the benifit of the doubt.
 
#4
sunk cost and appeal to probability are also fallacies. it would be hard for any of us to form any type of argument that passes logic/philosophy rigor about an undetermined event in the future (was extending Vlade the right move). it comes down to human intuition and whether you trust Vlade to lead the organization. Even though the two examples you use are logical fallacies as far as determining whether to keep Vlade, I can see why your intuition might lead you to think he is not the right man. For me, I think as long as the team is making improvements and it looks like there is a vision we are working towards, I am willing to give him the benifit of the doubt.
Sunk cost is an economical fallacy not a logical fallacy. I don't think appeal to probability was something I used because I used data to back up my argument. I will expand on it though.

Doncic ranked 21st in bpm, Bagley ranked 151'st. Doncic ranked 20th in vorp, Bagley ranked 237th. Doncic ranked 84th in rpm, Bagley ranked 478th. I'm also questioning why Vlade took a big man after in my opinion doing the correct thing by taking a late flyer on a big man the previous season in a league that is moving away from playing two traditional bigs. Bagley and Giles played 450 minutes together and were -4.9 points per 100 possessions, which is the equivalent of a 24 win team.
 
#5
Sunk cost is an economical fallacy not a logical fallacy. I don't think appeal to probability was something I used because I used data to back up my argument. I will expand on it though.

Doncic ranked 21st in bpm, Bagley ranked 151'st. Doncic ranked 20th in vorp, Bagley ranked 237th. Doncic ranked 84th in rpm, Bagley ranked 478th. I'm also questioning why Vlade took a big man after in my opinion doing the correct thing by taking a late flyer on a big man the previous season in a league that is moving away from playing two traditional bigs. Bagley and Giles played 450 minutes together and were -4.9 points per 100 possessions, which is the equivalent of a 24 win team.
Doncic definitely had a more impressive rookie season and will probably turn out to be a better player when all is said and done. But its not a certainty nor an established fact (because it has not happened yet) regardless of supporting evidence for its likelihood. But anyway, I do understand the points you are making, just do not agree with your conclusion that Vlade should not have been extended.
 
#6
Doncic definitely had a more impressive rookie season and will probably turn out to be a better player when all is said and done. But its not a certainty nor an established fact (because it has not happened yet) regardless of supporting evidence for its likelihood. But anyway, I do understand the points you are making, just do not agree with your conclusion that Vlade should not have been extended.
It's not an established fact, but it's a very, very high probability going back on 30 + years worth of data. My conclusion isn't that Vlade didn't deserve an extension it's that it wasn't this easy decision that most people here seem to think. I have serious criticism over a lot of his roster moves and that's something that keeps me from being 100 % on board with him being the number 1 decision maker.
 
#7
Bagley and Giles played 450 minutes together and were -4.9 points per 100 possessions, which is the equivalent of a 24 win team.
What does even prove? Other than a small sample size. Also was that with starters or bunch players. So little data here not too sure if you are being intellectually dishonest to prove a point if so shame on you
 
#8
What does even prove? Other than a small sample size. Also was that with starters or bunch players. So little data here not too sure if you are being intellectually dishonest to prove a point if so shame on you
450 minutes isn't a small sample size and it had to do with my criticism of using too much draft capital on big men in a league where it's getting harder and harder to play two bigs together like it's the 90's.
 
#11
1A and 1B

I’d personally still take Doncic.

That said, Bagley has absurd potential that kept growing every single time he stepped on the floor. You can see why the pick was made.
I wanted Doncic before the draft, but I have moved on.

Agreed. Bagley was growing by leaps and bounds last year. And if he would have had the benefit of starting games and playing 32+ minutes a game, I think he would had averaged close to double-double for the year. The fact that Joeger refused to start him, even though he was clearly the best big on the team, held his numbers back. Once he gets consistent from 3 point range (i.e. 37% or better) he is going to be damn near impossible to defend.

Bagley needs to add on some more strength, but Bagley is also a way better defender than Doncic will ever be. We could have a 2 way star player on our hands, while Doncic will always be a one way star.

Give Bagley 2 years and I think it will be 1A) Bagley and 1B) Doncic in a couple of years time. ;)
 
#12
It's not an established fact, but it's a very, very high probability going back on 30 + years worth of data. My conclusion isn't that Vlade didn't deserve an extension it's that it wasn't this easy decision that most people here seem to think. I have serious criticism over a lot of his roster moves and that's something that keeps me from being 100 % on board with him being the number 1 decision maker.
You can’t even go back with one year of data. All your points could have been applied to Fox and Lonzo last year. Fox was awful from an advanced stats perspective last year.
 
#13
You can’t even go back with one year of data. All your points could have been applied to Fox and Lonzo last year. Fox was awful from an advanced stats perspective last year.
No, we can with guards because the term "Big men take longer to develop" actually applies more to guards than it does big men. I can expand on that later.
 

SLAB

Hall of Famer
#14
You can’t even go back with one year of data. All your points could have been applied to Fox and Lonzo last year. Fox was awful from an advanced stats perspective last year.
There’s so many advanced stats out there you can pick and choose whatever the hell you want to fit the narrative you’re spinning.

As an aside I’d put money on a lot of people (no one here, of course) having zero clue what the stats actually mean.

“BUT HIS VORP SAYS _______”

“Without looking at your phone, what exactly does VORP mean?”

“........”
 
#15
There’s so many advanced stats out there you can pick and choose whatever the hell you want to fit the narrative you’re spinning.

As an aside I’d put money on a lot of people (no one here, of course) having zero clue what the stats actually mean.

“BUT HIS VORP SAYS _______”

“Without looking at your phone, what exactly does VORP mean?”

“........”
going really fast as to approach light speed but making spelling mistakes as you do it.
 
#18
There’s so many advanced stats out there you can pick and choose whatever the hell you want to fit the narrative you’re spinning.

As an aside I’d put money on a lot of people (no one here, of course) having zero clue what the stats actually mean.

“BUT HIS VORP SAYS _______”

“Without looking at your phone, what exactly does VORP mean?”

“........”
Was it Churchill who said something along the lines of 'I never trust a statistic unless I falsified it myself?'

In terms of VORP, don't have a clue so that makes at least one here.
 
#19
450 minutes isn't a small sample size and it had to do with my criticism of using too much draft capital on big men in a league where it's getting harder and harder to play two bigs together like it's the 90's.
actually it is 450 is not a lot of minutes considering they are both rookies. Also you can’t just label playing with two bigs harder to come by without taking into consideration of thier skill sets. Look at Denver,I am not saying that we have a Jokic on our team, but two bigs can work in the modern climate
 
#25
No, we can with guards because the term "Big men take longer to develop" actually applies more to guards than it does big men. I can expand on that later.
The often stated claim that bigs take longer to develop has always been wrong (as far as impact is concerned) and has basically been perpetuated by uninformed people who thought bigs made their impact by honing their post skills.

In general, bigs will make their impact MOST on defense and good defensive players begin making defensive impacts right away.

We have a list of 59 rookie bigs who played 50+ games, 1500+ minutes, and F/C, C, or C/F. 35 of them had a DBPM of +1 or greater in their respective rookie years. Almost all the defensive greats started making defensive impacts right away while it takes even most great point guards some experience before they can on offense.

Duncan, Bol, Eaton, Hakeem, DRob, Wallace, Camby, Ewing, Mutumbo are all plus defenders right away. Big Ben makes the biggest leap as he started off modestly and then reached incredible defensive highs.

Meanwhile, guards, especially small guards will make their impact on offense and very few are ever impactful as rookies. Additionally, very few PGs of typical height are ever even neutral defenders—they’re almost all -1, -2,-3 type defenders. Their offense hasn’t developed yet since they can’t run an offense yet so their offensive impact is either 0 or negative and most of them will be negative defenders even at their peaks. Put all those things together and you get bigs making an impact much earlier in their careers.

Lastly, it is nearly impossible to make MORE of an impact with elite defense than with elite offense. Elite offense has a higher ceiling especially since you can make 3's instead of twos. The most impactful defensive players are Bigs and they will NOT be able to prevent as many threes as a great offensive player can create (LeBron, Curry, Harden).

Additionally, even bigs, who can affect opposing offenses the most, can’t take away every player who’s scoring on every possession while an offensive player can directly make an offensive impact on every play no matter who is defending him and isn’t limited like a big on defense is.

Elite defensive and offensive seasons comparison based on OBPM and DBPM

+12 seasons: 1 on offense, 0 on defense
+11 seasons: 2 on offense, 0 on defense
+10 seasons: 2 on offense, 0 on defense
+9 seasons: 13 on offense, 0 on defense
+8 seasons: 15 on offesne, 0 on defense
+7 seasons: 27 on offense, 1 on defense (right at 7.0)
+6 seasons: 49 on offense, 12 on defense
+5 seasons: 108 on offense, 38 on defense
 
Last edited:
#27
It's a no brainer that Doncic is better. He's a 6'8 wing who's a PG and can do everything on offense. Those are the most coveted players in the league.

I fee like I'm just talking to myself, but I've always said that all along we decided to pass on Doncic because of the fit with Fox. In reality, I see it more of a debate between Doncic vs. Fox vs. Vlade.
 
#28
It's a no brainer that Doncic is better. He's a 6'8 wing who's a PG and can do everything on offense. Those are the most coveted players in the league.

I fee like I'm just talking to myself, but I've always said that all along we decided to pass on Doncic because of the fit with Fox. In reality, I see it more of a debate between Doncic vs. Fox vs. Vlade.
That is also an issue and one that would give me pause to extend Vlade. Two high usage players can coexist and is in fact optimal. Harden-Paul,Curry- Durant, James-Irving, James-Wade.

And maybe more importantly than that Fox didn't show enough to warrant not picking a high end talent that could potentially step on his toes so to speak.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#30
That is also an issue and one that would give me pause to extend Vlade. Two high usage players can coexist and is in fact optimal. Harden-Paul,Curry- Durant, James-Irving, James-Wade.

And maybe more importantly than that Fox didn't show enough to warrant not picking a high end talent that could potentially step on his toes so to speak.
Wow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.