[Game] Kings at Pacers, Wednesday May 5th, 5 PM Pacific (8 PM Eastern)

#93
As someone that didn’t like the Bagley pick at all then decided to give it a chance for a while to then give up on him — I gotta give him credit for playing one of his better games today.

But it was still one game. During the dog days of the season. When there’s no pressure on any of these players.

Stay healthy and do it consistently — in games that contain pressure — and I’ll fully convert.
 
#95
If we did that, we'd be picking 15th at best. Make the actual playoffs, miss the lottery.
I’m not advocating for this…. More resigned at this point to being so frustrated with this team that I would take only the bragging rights to knocking the lakers out of the playoffs, shrug my shoulders and continue to live my life.
 
#96
It's not the first time nor will be the last.

Honestly can't even blame Luke he wants to keep his job unless they give him a guarantee he's coming back next year why would he tank the GM had to step in but I'm loving this run and watching the team without its "stars".


How is that even possible without our two two-way SF and PG? Not just that but the veteran leadership as well.
Lol, because the teams we are playing suck. How did that Utah game go last week? Welcome to ignore.
 
Retaining Delon Wright is a must. He is by far and away the Kings best perimeter defender. His impact on the game is up there basically behind only Fox and maybe Holmes. He should be starting in place of Buddy Hield next year if the Kings want to actually try to win games instead of just scoring lots of points.
 
Have a question I’m too lazy to look up. If the Kings finish with a better record than the 9 or 10 playin teams in the east...... do they draft before or after them assuming those teams don’t make the play-offs?
Looked it up myself but it appears if we end up with a better record then Washington and/or the Pacers even if they participate in the play-in game we will draft behind them. This makes the 11 and 12 spot a real possibility.
 
And we surely haven't lost to teams that suck before while Fox and Barnes were playing m i rite?
But we also beat good teams WITH Fox and Barnes. This argument of wins or losses with or without Barnes is getting ridiculous and idiotic. You guys are saying the same things over and over and it still doesn’t support arguments one way or another. We’ve beaten good teams WITH and WITHOUT Fox and Barnes. We also lost to bad teams WITH and WITHOUT Fox and Barnes. You can probably say the same thing about holmes, buddy, bagley (insert player you love or hate here _____). It doesn’t prove anything, so can everyone in this asinine argument please stop using this as a point?
 
But we also beat good teams WITH Fox and Barnes. This argument of wins or losses with or without Barnes is getting ridiculous and idiotic. You guys are saying the same things over and over and it still doesn’t support arguments one way or another. We’ve beaten good teams WITH and WITHOUT Fox and Barnes. We also lost to bad teams WITH and WITHOUT Fox and Barnes. You can probably say the same thing about holmes, buddy, bagley (insert player you love or hate here _____). It doesn’t prove anything, so can everyone in this asinine argument please stop using this as a point?
Technically we haven't lost to bad teams without both Fox and Barnes (not in recent stretch at least), but perhaps there was that one or two game stretch earlier in the year. Can't recall. Also can't say much about winning/losing without Buddy because he never misses a game lol. But I agree with your point.

While I agree with you somewhat, there is also some nuance to the context of the argument. The point being made now isn't that we are better off without Barnes and Fox; I certainly don't believe that. For me at least, it's about pointing out that this Kings team is more than just Fox/Hali/Barnes. There is a perpetuated notion (by some) that Fox/Barnes/Hali are two-way studs who can do no wrong while everyone else is what's holding the team back. When the team wins with them, it's because of them, and when the team wins without them, it's supposedly because the games are meaningless and the teams we beat are bad. Likewise for defensive effort. Meanwhile, when we lose to bad teams with them, it is everyone else's fault.

So you are absolutely right that games shouldn't be looked at in isolation, and I absolutely can't stand it when people/media don't seem to grasp the idea that EVERY team and player in the league faces similar trends of up and down play, weak and strong schedules, good luck with opponents being shorthanded or bad luck with dealing with their own injuries. It all averages out. Losing and winning is shared by the entire team.

You know how we generally don't like player fans, whether it's Jimmer or European player X? What I've realised over the years is that in reality all of us are player fans, but perhaps for 3-4 players on the team rather than just one.
 
Last edited:
But we also beat good teams WITH Fox and Barnes. This argument of wins or losses with or without Barnes is getting ridiculous and idiotic. You guys are saying the same things over and over and it still doesn’t support arguments one way or another. We’ve beaten good teams WITH and WITHOUT Fox and Barnes. We also lost to bad teams WITH and WITHOUT Fox and Barnes. You can probably say the same thing about holmes, buddy, bagley (insert player you love or hate here _____). It doesn’t prove anything, so can everyone in this asinine argument please stop using this as a point?
That's exactly the issue is that there seems to be no difference in particular when Barnes (20million per) plays or doesn't, it proves a lot when a bad team can lose there "superstar PG" and "2 way SF" and over close to 30 games be 4 games over 500. It's not like the Kings are loaded with talent and can easily do without their starting PG/SF. Replacing them with journeymen Cojo/Wright/Harkless and getting the same results or better shows there is a problem.