You look at a simple stat that must change for the Kings to have more success, its ppg for each player. They didn't have 1 player above 15 ppg last season. They need at least 3 players I think, and preferably 2 above 20 ppg. There has to be more consistent and go-to scoring. They cant have 6 players around 12ppg and expect to outscore other teams consistently in the current NBA where scoring is so critical. I think Hield can be one of those needed scorers, but who are the others......
ESPN 25 Win Season Projection
- Thread starter kingdivac
- Start date
Probably, and simply, scoring will go up when players increase their FG%s. Players need to make more baskets than miss on a routine basis, or, get to the FT line often and generate points off of fouls. Kings need to bring up their team scoring average by 4-6 pts from last year at least. Awhile back high 90s would probably have been fine for offense, but not with the high scoring in the league now.
If Bogs and Buddy don't get there next year that would be a great disappointment for me. (I'm assuming Bogs is going to play some 3 or even some 1 at times next year, as well as the 2). I'm not a betting man, but if I were I'd put some $ down that Bogs gets to 15 ppg or higher next year. After Bogs and Hield it becomes more murky and that's part of the excitement for next year - to see who is going to break out or not.
I wasn't referring to those kinds. I was referring to the post I quoted, the kind that complains about how other fans view the team. As I said, if someone wants to wear Original KDs™ purple-tinted sunglasses to view the team, so what? If that's not what someone wants to read, they can simply scroll on by. When a lot of the peope who post here have been here for well over a decade, there are certain posters whose style and philosophy are very well known. To say it "gets old" is just silly IMHO.
Are you pessimistic? Maybe but you try to be fair. Your items 1 thru 3 above attest to the fact.
Are you pessimistic? Maybe but you try to be fair. Your items 1 thru 3 above attest to the fact.
I wasn't referring to those kinds. I was referring to the post I quoted, the kind that complains about how other fans view the team. As I said, if someone wants to wear Original KDs™ purple-tinted sunglasses to view the team, so what? If that's not what someone wants to read, they can simply scroll on by. When a lot of the peope who post here have been here for well over a decade, there are certain posters whose style and philosophy are very well known. To say it "gets old" is just silly IMHO.
Are you pessimistic? Maybe but you try to be fair. Your items 1 thru 3 above attest to the fact.
Are you pessimistic? Maybe but you try to be fair. Your items 1 thru 3 above attest to the fact.
8 player rotation:
1: Fox/Ferrell
2&3: Hield/Bogdanovic/Jackson
4&5: Giles/Bagley/WCS
Add to that some quality min for Bjelica (at 3/4) and spot-min for Koufos.
This is a team that, barring major injuries, should be both exciting and will win some games. Maybe 30 wins, maybe not. But that will probably have more to do with injuries, both for the Kings and for other teams in the West, than it will have to do with the talent on our roster.
1: Fox/Ferrell
2&3: Hield/Bogdanovic/Jackson
4&5: Giles/Bagley/WCS
Add to that some quality min for Bjelica (at 3/4) and spot-min for Koufos.
This is a team that, barring major injuries, should be both exciting and will win some games. Maybe 30 wins, maybe not. But that will probably have more to do with injuries, both for the Kings and for other teams in the West, than it will have to do with the talent on our roster.
There is a difference in being optimistic and delusional. That being said, people can think whatever they want, as can I. My beef isn't necessarily with the inflated win totals, although IIRC last year there were a couple posters that thought we would approach 48 wins, it's more the discounting of statistical models just because they are from national media and don't know whats going on in Sacramento. It's completely different than Jay Bilas saying we had a bad locker room. That's conjecture, the other part is math. I even looked back and one of my first posts was optimistic saying if things break right we could approach 30 wins. I don't believe that is likely, it is not impossible. This team (barring an unforeseen trade) will not go .500. They wont even approach it.
I'll happily take as much crap as you like to give me if I am wrong. Do it with a smile on my face because that means the Kings exceeded 99.999% of expectations.
I'll happily take as much crap as you like to give me if I am wrong. Do it with a smile on my face because that means the Kings exceeded 99.999% of expectations.
I hesitate to put it entirely on Joerger, but Buddy should definitely get more than 15 ppg next year. Also, I'd really like to see him play more against starters next year, not just subs, and have Bogs at the 3 when they can get away with the matchup. My "test" for Joerger is in the "pace" department. If he can't get this team out of last place in pace and at least in the top half of the league in pace next year, I think he's done. And the issue of tempo and pace also figures into how many points per game the players on the team will have.
No one can claim complete objectivity. But that's not really the point is it?
The stats prediction model that ESPN uses is obviously an attempt at such. But although it has been accurate with the Kings in recent seasons (sigh), it has been off by a fair amount with other teams. When there is change it doesn't foresee (as happens in sport, life) objectivity is a limitation.
Therein lies my hope. Talented rookies, steady improvement, accumulation of one percenters = a bad year for algorithms.
(I seem to be on repeat with close to all of my posts and wonder the point).
The stats prediction model that ESPN uses is obviously an attempt at such. But although it has been accurate with the Kings in recent seasons (sigh), it has been off by a fair amount with other teams. When there is change it doesn't foresee (as happens in sport, life) objectivity is a limitation.
Therein lies my hope. Talented rookies, steady improvement, accumulation of one percenters = a bad year for algorithms.
(I seem to be on repeat with close to all of my posts and wonder the point).