Kings_of_California
Starter
How could it project us worse than the Suns and Thunder? The Suns are the Suns and the Thunder have a starting lineup of...I don't even know at this point.
FiveThirtyEight Project Kings to Finish Last in West
- Thread starter Bosnian Diehard
- Start date
Sac.Kings
All-Star
Fox suddenly becoming worse doesn’t even make sense. Dude just finished third in most improved and is 21 years old... wow. And I thought the weather folks were wrong a lot. These guys make them look like Einstein.
LPKingsFan
All-Star
kb02
All-Star
To be fair, I think there's something wrong with their inputs. There may be one or a few variables that are skewing the data. My feeling, from looking at their projections last year, is that their data gets skewed for teams with a bunch of players who have less than 3 years of NBA experience.
The projections for Fox and Bags are not subjective. It's a product of their method, which is essentially an average (not literally, but essentially) of the group of players, who most resemble Fox or Bags. In Fox's case, those players, on average, regressed from year 2 to year 3, so they're assuming he'll regress as well. Barring injury, he won't. I'm confident of that. One of the most overlooked things that have been said by the newest Kings is the Young Kings have a reputation for being good people, who want to get better. I've been reading Andre Igoudala's bio and he pretty much says the difference between great and average players is work ethic and between the ears. Time will tell.
Last edited:
Suicide King
Starter
10-4
Chupacabra
Starter
They think the Clippers will win less than 50 games LOL. Lock the thread!
sactowndog
All-Star
Joeger’s approach to limiting rookies is coming into play here. Fox Bagley and Giles had relatively poor rookie years and are very understated in their model.
Fox could well be an all star but his rookie numbers were horrible. Bagley’s were slightly better but the same issue exists.
HndsmCelt
Hall of Famer
Yes, but to be fair to Nate SIlver who really does build first rate statistical models, the problem is not so much HIS model per say but the complexities of basketball that limit every statistical model as a predictor of outcomes for this sport in particular. This of course is why I pay almost no attention to odds and predictions before the season starts and only slightly more as the season progresses. That being said these numbers are so out of wack I had to check the date on the predictions. It honestly sees like the kind of bad data you might get from either old or incomplete data sets. It is as if noone at 458 even watches the game, otherwise I would expect some one to say "whoa... what are we thinking ranking team in full rebuild like OK and the Golden State so high while undervaluing teams that have just pulled off major coups like the Clips and Pels?"
Bleacher Report just cited 538's predictions in making their own power rankings, but said that 538 seemed wrong about the Kings.
Full article at https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2846102-nba-power-rankings-post-free-agency
Full article at https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2846102-nba-power-rankings-post-free-agency
ockingsfan
Starter
Their models have us finishing 33-49, good for 15th in the West. They think we win six less games with a deeper roster and you ger talent developing.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-way-too-early-projections-for-the-2019-20-nba-season/
View attachment 9250
This article is just lazy writing. They obviously have no clue as to what the Kings have been building here in Sacramento the last few years. They are just following the old and tired narrative that the Kings have no clue.
The Kings are a young, up and coming team that just signed 3 solid vets that compliment the rest of the young core and the Kings should improve on our record from last year.
My prediction is at least 46 wins and we will be challenging for the 8th playoffs spot all year.
Last edited:
The narrative of the post-free agency season has been the death of the super team and I can't look at this roster and think that's what Vlade has crafted. We've got two future All-NBA caliber guys plus a lights out shooter in Buddy and a 6th man of the year caliber guy in Bogs (if he can play like he's shown capable before regressing) plus whatever Giles turns into. Barnes and Dedmon round out the best looking opening day starting lineup we've put together post-Webber. Add in a ton of proven glue/role-player vets on team friendly deals.
So maybe this isn't the year we win 60 games and fight for a top seed, but the notion we're just going to scrape by in a "new era" where teams are limited to two max-contract dudes and whoever you can fill in around them befuddles me. Ultimately we may meet the same fate, but we've got a nice little window here to build on and secure a 5-6 year run.
So maybe this isn't the year we win 60 games and fight for a top seed, but the notion we're just going to scrape by in a "new era" where teams are limited to two max-contract dudes and whoever you can fill in around them befuddles me. Ultimately we may meet the same fate, but we've got a nice little window here to build on and secure a 5-6 year run.
I think some folks may be overrating or have too high expectations for this team., this upcoming season. While 33 wins and last place per the topic seems unlikely,, 49 of 50 wins and 6th or 7th doesn't seem right either on the other end of the spectrum. The Kings showed last year how to fall apart, and still have much proving to do. In their defense they were a young team. But the grace-period is fading, and they're going have to beat upper level teams more consistently while not losing to the Suns, Grizzlies, Mavericks, T-Wolves, and Pelicans to make the playoffs There were too many "find-a-way-to-lose" games last year - especially 2nd halves. The Kings were a midpoint team which was great considering the duration in the doghouse they'd been in prior season after season. But there's no guarantee that the free-agents 'mesh' well either. Is this their proving year where they break-out yet again? Maybe, but I'm not going to expect it., and save the disappointment for myself. They need to prove it - the pressure and onus is on them. They must execute on defense and FTs together with re-conjuring a similar level of offense. That's a tall order for any team, especially one that played it conservatively in free agency such as the Kings organization. Younger players would be expected to improve an equal amount or better to last year - and that's a bunch of pressure. The team really can't afford regression from any main-level player; or in other words you'd have to assume their free agents pick up the slack, too. which is an unknown. Throw on top of that a new, younger coach, and really, who knows.
Gary
All-Star
They loved WCS and felt that getting rid of him was the worst thing we could have done this offseason... Just kidding.
This was a 45 win team last year easy had they been managed properly after the trade for Barnes. So I don't think 50 wins is as much of an improvement in reality as it would appear on paper.
I don't know - although Joerger sometimes was stubborn on rotations, ultimately its on the whole team. Coaching is an intangible that unless egregiously bad is difficult to quantify in terms of wins/lossses - especially in basketball, much more fluid and less strategic than say US Football. And I dont think it was egregiously bad. Its easy to 2nd guess. They sputtered out over 20-some-odd games,. They've made some tweaks, but no idea if enough. It would be outstanding if just 1 of the new free agents they signed turned out to be a catalyst or impact player. And they're gonna need it too.
Telemachus
Starter
What I keep wondering about is something Bogie said in the interview he did over in Europe. He said the Kings played a basic defense all season because the coaches wanted to see what the players could do and make adjustments next season (paraphrase). It doesn't take teams long to figure out what teams are doing (or not doing) and plan accordingly. I can't help but think this strategy cost the Kings a few wins last season.
We really crashed hard after the trade and lost something like 6 of the final 10, most of which were very winnable games. Including the finale at Portland which they handed to us on a platter. A lot of that goes beyond stubbornness to just flat out misusing Bogi and Barnes. There was also some bad luck with Bags getting injured.
Bottom line for me is the trade made us significantly better but the team performed significantly worse afterwards. A full offseason should solve that. I don't know if Walton is the next Pop but he's at least as good as Joerger in my book.
whitechocolate
Bench
I just keep thinking that the game is going to come very easily to Fox this upcoming season. I think it could be the year we really see how special a player he is. If Bagley makes a significant jump, we are going to have a lot of fun.
I dont know about "significantly" better. There certainly wasn't that response in Wins as you point out - but that was last year luckily or unluckily, and I have no clue whether Walton will be better. It's possible they do better next season, but possibly not. And dont know how this free agency "solves" the problems. They went conservative - quantity over quality. Had the team made the playoffs last year, I'd have much higher expectations unsurprisingly. for this season. Really I wasn't impressed with the Free Agency from the fairly poor contracts only a season and a half after getting burned by Hill, and the Cauley Stein debacle. which I confess I have no idea as to when it actually began. I don't know the inner-dynamics of the team , front-office, and Joerger. I recall the blowup with Hield which may have contributed to his dismissal. Anyway keeping my expectations grounded for some of the reason above., and more to protect my sanity once the season begins.
I for one thought the coaching last year for the most part was just terrible. Yes other teams are watching and plan according and you have to be able to counter that if you have the talent.
I think vlade has addressed those two challenges very well this off season. Filled that hole in the middle, picked up some decent defensive minded players and we have depth so I do not see any more need to bring along players slowly this year as everyone should have the talent to perform well.
And yeah a new coach that I hope will play to win every game and is willing to adapt.
I think vlade has addressed those two challenges very well this off season. Filled that hole in the middle, picked up some decent defensive minded players and we have depth so I do not see any more need to bring along players slowly this year as everyone should have the talent to perform well.
And yeah a new coach that I hope will play to win every game and is willing to adapt.
Kings have one of the lowest payouts on the over, so Vegas doesn't really believe that we will only win 37, they just want to set an attractive bet with a lower risk payout. But they're also trying to get people to vote the under.
Chupacabra
Starter
Thanks for posting this! I understand that you're the messenger, but I really dont see how that is even plausible. Last year we improved our win total by 12 compared to the prior year, and we did so with a young team. How can anyone rationalize us backsliding? If our team is better than the one that had a steep upward trajectory of a 12 win improvement, what would be the reason for under-performing next year? All of our best players are expected to be even better, our bench is deeper...what gives? The idea that all of the teams that landed a star in the offseason have to do really well is poop.
Remember that Vegas is trying to lead people to bet in a way that will make them money not accurately predict win totals. Which is why the over is a 25% premium to bet while the under gives a 5% bonus.
If the line creator is doing their job right, half the money goes to either side and they collect 30% of all bets. But by making the under the more attractive bet it shows they don't really expect us to win less than 37 games.
Plausible compared to 33 wins from the earlier topic. I think 37 wins is a decent guess. Why?. New coach, many new players, 1+ of the better players underperform, bench players underperform, offense drops off at expense of defense, defense doesn't pick enough, FTs death by a thousand slices - take your pick, or combine. Could they win more?, Sure, how much? 42-44 wins maybe - guessing? Would be surprised if they win 50 - it would mean Bagley stayed healthy and takes over - not sure he's there yet - still young and inexperienced.
Or they have a lower payout because they have less conviction in Kings winning more. O/U point theoretically is where they want to have equal numbers of bets above and below. But hey, they're waiting for your money if you know what they really believe or not..
Last edited:
