ESPN 25 Win Season Projection

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#61
The first bit is more or less what I mean. My point is that Net Rtg (or very similar stats, like Margin of Victory) does an amazing job of correlating with record, it just doesn't do nearly so good at predicting the next years Net Rtg.

For instance, if you calculate the correlation between a team's MOV (easier for me to grab than Net Rtg, but same idea) and its record over just the last year, the correlation coefficient is 0.96, which is huge. You can explain 96% of a team's record simply by looking at its point margin. But if you compare teams' '17-'18 MOV to their '16-'17 MOV, the correlation coefficient is only 0.62. Yes, that's not at all bad, but that suggests that you can't capture over a third of the variability in MOV (and therefore about the same amount of variability in record, given the tight correlation between record and MOV) by just comparing to the previous season.

There are reasons for this, not the least of which are player movement, changes in coaching staff, addition of draft picks, player development, player aging, injuries and recovery from injuries, etc.

Just to belabor the point, the fundamental difference between the two comparisons is that in the first case (Net Rtg vs record), you are taking two different measures of what has already happened and seeing how well they agree, but there is no prediction. Both measures are taken on the same results from the past. That the agree so closely suggests that they are closely related, as we should expect point margins and record to be, as wins and losses come directly from point margins. In the second case (Net Rtg vs. Net Rtg subsequent year), you're trying to use one measure to predict an outcome that hasn't happened yet, and there's a lot more uncertainty in that.

I don't think I would call anything here a "worthless exercise". But I think we need to have an idea of how much value the exercise has, and what the pitfalls are.
Thanks for the explanation.
 
#63
We are on the brink of breaking out to exceed 30 win season

Much like 1994-95 season, I can remember us fans wondering if we were ever going to have a 30+ season again after 8 straight yrs of sub 30 win seasons. ( 2018-19 year we had 8 of 10 prior years with a under 30 win total)

We drafted Brian Grant, Michael smith, and Funderburke and went on to win 39,39,34 games and one playoff appearance

So I think we win 34this yr. 39 next yr and make playoffs
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#64
30 wins would be a nice step forward compared to the last 10 years.
why you say that? The Kings won over 30 games with Cousins, Rudy and Rondo...the goal should be higher but at the same time, there is too much youth on the roster right now that is unproven so the wins won't matter as much as the development of the players and team in general.
 
#66
why you say that? The Kings won over 30 games with Cousins, Rudy and Rondo...the goal should be higher but at the same time, there is too much youth on the roster right now that is unproven so the wins won't matter as much as the development of the players and team in general.
Yes the goal should be 41.....not easily attainable, especially for this team, hence the goal.
 
#72
538 was revolutionary a decade ago with their election polling methodology although they've regressed to the norm now, but how accurate are they with basketball?

I mean I get that we were a bad team last year and the top of the West got a lot better (plus LeBron), though I'd argue the remaining teams mostly reshuffled. We've got two highly touted picks joining us, a ton of young guys with a year of experience, and no loss of key personnel so I just don't see how we regress and win 25% less of our games, which I think effectively puts us as bad as we've ever been the last 12 years. Especially when we have zero incentive to tank this year and regardless of how the top picks are projecting there will always be teams throwing in the towel at the end of a season.
 

Krunker

Northernmost Kings Fan
#73
538 was revolutionary a decade ago with their election polling methodology although they've regressed to the norm now, but how accurate are they with basketball?

I mean I get that we were a bad team last year and the top of the West got a lot better (plus LeBron), though I'd argue the remaining teams mostly reshuffled. We've got two highly touted picks joining us, a ton of young guys with a year of experience, and no loss of key personnel so I just don't see how we regress and win 25% less of our games, which I think effectively puts us as bad as we've ever been the last 12 years. Especially when we have zero incentive to tank this year and regardless of how the top picks are projecting there will always be teams throwing in the towel at the end of a season.
Yep, I think their model just misses out on those factors. I do think we have a higher chance of being really bad or "surprisingly" better.
 
#74
Yep, I think their model just misses out on those factors. I do think we have a higher chance of being really bad or "surprisingly" better.
The truth is we could win 35 games like the Lakers did last season and move all the way up from 12th in the standings to ... 11th.

I think that's very realistic and most would probably still say LOL Kangz, 12 games out of a playoff spot! while ignoring the 8 win improvement with a young salary controlled roster.
 
#75


Lots of these in this thread. It gets kind of old. Every year we are projected for a certain number of wins by various sites. Half the forum says that is crazy we are going to win 5, 10, 15 games more than that, then we end up within 1 game of the prediction.

We have no stars on this team. None. We barely have starting quality players.

It's a weird team. We have 10 or so pretty good players with potential, but not a one of them (except maybe Bogi) have reached that potential. I would love to be wrong, but I wont. We will win 27 or so games this year. I hope I am wrong. 30/31 is our absolute ceiling if everything breaks right. 21-23 if it breaks wrong is our low.
 
#77
I've been a Kings fan since the team arrived from Kansas City. As far as I can remember, this is the only true rebuild we've been though. If you're disappointed that we don't have any STARS on the roster, that's by design. What we have on the roster is potential. For some of us, that's enough for now. For others, that's fuel for the constant criticism fire. Although, by the end of this next season, if we can't point at 2-3 of the Kings players and clearly say "these are our stars," then we're in trouble.
 
#78
I've been a Kings fan since the team arrived from Kansas City. As far as I can remember, this is the only true rebuild we've been though. If you're disappointed that we don't have any STARS on the roster, that's by design. What we have on the roster is potential. For some of us, that's enough for now. For others, that's fuel for the constant criticism fire. Although, by the end of this next season, if we can't point at 2-3 of the Kings players and clearly say "these are our stars," then we're in trouble.

But we have people on here stating we could make the playoffs, predicting 33-41 wins, stating that 538, ESPN, etc. have no idea what they are talking about. Yet year after year, those sites are correct and we (the royal we) are wrong.

If we can push up towards 30 wins I will be ecstatic. I don't see that happening.
 
#80
538 was revolutionary a decade ago with their election polling methodology although they've regressed to the norm now, but how accurate are they with basketball?

I mean I get that we were a bad team last year and the top of the West got a lot better (plus LeBron), though I'd argue the remaining teams mostly reshuffled. We've got two highly touted picks joining us, a ton of young guys with a year of experience, and no loss of key personnel so I just don't see how we regress and win 25% less of our games, which I think effectively puts us as bad as we've ever been the last 12 years. Especially when we have zero incentive to tank this year and regardless of how the top picks are projecting there will always be teams throwing in the towel at the end of a season.
I had predicted a 37 win season, and said that I would be disappointed with a lower record. In hindsight, that is a tall order, since this means we need to win around 10 games that we were expected to lose last year. Coupled with some cushion we might have received from tanking teams, and the fact that many teams that ended below us improved significantly, or are seeing major pieces return, this seems optimistic.

My "prediction" was based on the same logic though. We aren't adding any major established piece, but at least some of the kids should show some growth, which should translate to more wins. If we are competitive most games, and win with decent frequency at home, and against teams we are expected to win, I'll accept it. Main thing I want to see is the team developing an identity and structure, emergence of a leader and development of some kids. If we could trade some of the vets for some future assets, that would be even more welcome.
 

dude12

Hall of Famer
#81
With this group, they potentially could jump in wins and most won’t see it coming because there is so much youth on this team.
What if:
Fox elevates his game to young star levels? He did noticeably put on muscle, that will be huge.
Bogi and Hield continue to prove their games?
Giles and Bagley both play at possible rookie of the year levels?
Ferrell becomes a 6th man of year candidate
WCS improves on his numbers from last year which were an improvement?
JJ shoots closer to 40% than 30% from 3.

I don’t think any of the above is far fetched. Probably need all of that to happen though to go along with solid usual play from Koufos and other vets.
 
#82
But we have people on here stating we could make the playoffs, predicting 33-41 wins, stating that 538, ESPN, etc. have no idea what they are talking about. Yet year after year, those sites are correct and we (the royal we) are wrong.
If we can push up towards 30 wins I will be ecstatic. I don't see that happening.
I'll be happy with 30 wins as well. 35 wins would be my ecstasy point. 25 wins and I'll be one grouchy fan.
I think people who predict more wins than are likely just reflects their need to feel encouraged. Why be annoyed by that?
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#83


Lots of these in this thread. It gets kind of old. Every year we are projected for a certain number of wins by various sites. Half the forum says that is crazy we are going to win 5, 10, 15 games more than that, then we end up within 1 game of the prediction.

We have no stars on this team. None. We barely have starting quality players.

It's a weird team. We have 10 or so pretty good players with potential, but not a one of them (except maybe Bogi) have reached that potential. I would love to be wrong, but I wont. We will win 27 or so games this year. I hope I am wrong. 30/31 is our absolute ceiling if everything breaks right. 21-23 if it breaks wrong is our low.
You know what else gets old? People who think they have to dump on other people for being optimistic. How on earth does somebody thinking the Kings will do well affect how you watch the games? Unless I'm missing something and there's some kind of fine that you have to pay because someone else hopefully projected that we'd win more games than a bunch of "various sites" projected and the Kings failed to meet those numbers.
 
#84
If we can match last years record without winning tank games by other teams ill be happy

Update: we'll prolly win some tank games too :p (just not as many hopefully)
 
#86
I've been a Kings fan since the team arrived from Kansas City. As far as I can remember, this is the only true rebuild we've been though. If you're disappointed that we don't have any STARS on the roster, that's by design. What we have on the roster is potential. For some of us, that's enough for now. For others, that's fuel for the constant criticism fire. Although, by the end of this next season, if we can't point at 2-3 of the Kings players and clearly say "these are our stars," then we're in trouble.
This is a fair point. We have to have 2-3 players other players want to come join from this group:
Bogdan
Buddy
Giles
Bagley
Fox
 
#87
You know what else gets old? People who think they have to dump on other people for being optimistic. How on earth does somebody thinking the Kings will do well affect how you watch the games? Unless I'm missing something and there's some kind of fine that you have to pay because someone else hopefully projected that we'd win more games than a bunch of "various sites" projected and the Kings failed to meet those numbers.
To be fair those who are being analytical or fact based are dumped on just as much if not more. The fact people are still on this site is a testament to their optimism.

I’m sure I would be lumped into the pessimistic side. Yet, I still follow the Kings, think they have potential. I do this despite the fact some I know in the business say no Kings player would make the top 10 rotation players on their team. I think we have reason to consider the models off but, if you are honest, the models are usually right on.

Here is why the analysis may be flawed...
1) The analysis looks at scoring and such. Last year no Kings players played starter minutes. Play are best players starter minutes and the numbers look better.

2) the analysis doesn’t capture the impact of “red shirt” players who aren’t rookies but had no statistical impact the previous year. I think we have a good one in Giles and he will make an impact.

3) the Kings had 3 first year players in Fox, Jackson and Bogdan play significant minutes. Their growth is hard to project.
 
#88
why you say that? The Kings won over 30 games with Cousins, Rudy and Rondo...the goal should be higher but at the same time, there is too much youth on the roster right now that is unproven so the wins won't matter as much as the development of the players and team in general.
I say that because we don't have proven pros like Cousins, Rudy and Rondo. We have a group of kids and some veterans at the end of their careers.
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#89
I say that because we don't have proven pros like Cousins, Rudy and Rondo. We have a group of kids and some veterans at the end of their careers.
which is precisely the point that I was trying to make, if a Kings team with all those veteran players can barely squeak out over 30 wins, what gives you hope that all this youth can do it? Unless you believe otherwise, then my mistake.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#90
Will any of the group of Fox, Giles, Bagley, JJ. WCS or Skal have the kind of improvement and impact that Hield did in the 2nd half of last season? If you know the answer to that you'll have a much better idea of the coming season. If not, then not so much. If everybody from that group plays about the same as last year, then the ESPN prediction will probably be right. But if you get a couple out of the group that have the same improvement and performance that Hield did at the end of last year, the prediction could be way off.