Kings' luck continues...

[TheWileyVet]

I disagree - the worst team should have a better chance of getting a number 1 pick than a number 4, and should get a better shot at #1 than 25%. Maybe 40-30-20-10 as far as percentages go (for the sake of arguement)? I mean, really, is it fair that a team that tries but sucks into the worst record in the league gets stuck with the #4 pick more often than #1?

I completely agree. There should be a lottery system, but the worst team only gets 25%? That's weak. 40% sounds about right. The lottery should help prevent tanking, but it shouldn't hurt the worst team EVERY year. The worst team barely ever gets the #1 pick!

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Please do not lose any sleep over this. It is completely possible that we will end-up with the best player in the draft @ #4. It is a crap shoot this year. We will not know what kind of "luck" we had today until 5-19-14.

I agree wholeheartedly. This isn't the kind of draft with one guaranteed stud and a bunch of nothing. Even the consensus #1 is a question mark. This actually takes off a ton of pressure for both the team and the player we ultimately get.

I also think this whole bad luck meme that floats around here is a bit overblown but I'll save it for another day.

 

[Bricklayer]

What I find amusing is the consistent hypocrisy on the lottery issue -- a year ago it was "every team int he lottery should ahve the exact same chance -- that'll stop those tankers". Now its "we should do away wiht the lottery or weight it so heavily for the worst teams as to effectively do away wiht it". And all of course because we are in a different position now.

Fact is the NBA is the only league that even attempts to stop tanking -- every other major sports league (this side of the pond) just goes in reverse order. Thing is though, a superstar player is so much easier to predict and so much more critical to an NBA team, that the NBA had no choice. No rational baseball/hockey team is going to tank for a #1 pick in baseball. But no rational NBA team would NOT tank to get Shaq if he were there.

 

[D-Rock]

What bugs me the most is that Miami obviously tanked last season and still received the #2 pick in the lotto, whereas the Kings were just obviously that bad and got bumped to the worst possible slot. Miami should have received some penalty for fielding a D-League team.

Another thing I found amusing and annoying is that leading up to the lottery I heard Grant say, over and over, that you don't draft for need; you take the best player available. When the Kings got bumped to #4, he's suddenly talking about how Memphis and OKC don't need a point guard and might let Rubio slip. WTF?

It wasn't just Grant. I heard plenty of people on KHTK and on the message boards using this same rationalization, when most of them were talking BPA before the lotto.

At least Carmichael Dave was realistic about the situation. He told callers over and over that, "No, Rubio is not going to slip," but thinks there's still a shot that he ends up here in a trade.

 

[Warhawk]

What I find amusing is the consistent hypocrisy on the lottery issue -- a year ago it was "every team int he lottery should ahve the exact same chance -- that'll stop those tankers". Now its "we should do away wiht the lottery or weight it so heavily for the worst teams as to effectively do away wiht it". And all of course because we are in a different position now.

I think there just has to be a balance there which is lacking. And not just because we were in line this time. I think the above percentages (or some other, I'll let the statisticians work on that - or Cap't !, if he is up to it) are more "fair". Maybe the top number needs to be 33%? A 1 in 3 shot? 40% may be a bit high, but 25% is too low, IMHO. Maybe 35-30-20-15?

The worst team should not (statistically) have a better shot at #4 than #1.

 

[Bricklayer]

I think there just has to be a balance there which is lacking. And not just because we were in line this time. I think the above percentages (or some other, I'll let the statisticians work on that - or Cap't !, if he is up to it) are more "fair". Maybe the top number needs to be 33%? A 1 in 3 shot? 40% may be a bit high, but 25% is too low, IMHO. Maybe 35-30-20-15?

The worst team should not (statistically) have a better shot at #4 than #1.

And again, a year ago we were talking about the percentages begin too HIGH and therefore encouraging tanking. If there was tanking to get a 25% shot (not us, but in general), there would certainly be tanking to get a 40% shot.

I am not 100% against adjusting the percentages BTW. I really don't care one way or the other. Its just the ridiculousness of it always being broken one way or the other, depending on where our interest lies, that is silly.

 

[KCKingsCountry]

NBA had to do it bc basketball is the one pro sport where one player can make a huge difference compared to the other team sports.

 

[D-Rock]

I think there just has to be a balance there which is lacking. And not just because we were in line this time. I think the above percentages (or some other, I'll let the statisticians work on that - or Cap't !, if he is up to it) are more "fair". Maybe the top number needs to be 33%? A 1 in 3 shot? 40% may be a bit high, but 25% is too low, IMHO. Maybe 35-30-20-15?

The worst team should not (statistically) have a better shot at #4 than #1.

How about only giving one team the chance to move up, but select for every position until that happens? Run the lotto machine for #1, and if a team other than the worst wins that, lotto over. If not, run the machine again for position #2 and continue on down the line until someone moves or you run out of lottery positions.

Although I guess you'd have to adjust the numbers after every pick is locked in. Like if the worst team secures the #1 pick, then the second worst team inherits the worst teams numbers, third worst gets second worsts numbers, and so on down the line.

 

[G_M]

What I find amusing is the consistent hypocrisy on the lottery issue -- a year ago it was "every team int he lottery should ahve the exact same chance -- that'll stop those tankers". Now its "we should do away wiht the lottery or weight it so heavily for the worst teams as to effectively do away wiht it". And all of course because we are in a different position now.

Let me preface this by saying I have not researched this assertion. I was told that only twice in the last 20 years has the team with the worst record "won" the rights to pick 1st. I have no answer but it seems that sample is large enough to indicate that a change may be needed. It may be this is the best, most "fair" system. I don't know but it seems a little odd....

 

[Jerryaki]

how about all non-playoff teams (14) play a single elimination tournament to determine draft order?

 

[Showtime]

I disagree - the worst team should have a better chance of getting a number 1 pick than a number 4, and should get a better shot at #1 than 25%.

25% is a huge % compared to the rest of the league.

Kings had like 75% chance at a top 3 pick. The odds were there, it just didn't work out. The entire reason they don't guarantee picks based on record is precisely to prevent tanking, because when teams tank, they may not be as bad as their record suggests.

Also, the Clippers actually got the #2 pick as well (their numbers came up), but they had to re-do that.

 

[Warhawk]

Kings had like 75% chance at a top 3 pick. The odds were there, it just didn't work out. The entire reason they don't guarantee picks based on record is precisely to prevent tanking, because when teams tank, they may not be as bad as their record suggests.

Nope, we had closer to 65% for top 3 and 35% for #4. A higher percentage for the 4th pick than any other spot, with #1 being 25%. That is just out of line, no matter which team is in last place. Heck, I think a 25% shot at 1 through 4 would be an improvement instead of this....

 

[RIP miyagi]

is it just me, or did waking up today feel like the day after your girlfriend broke up with you or somebody close to you died? just that kinda woozy feeling of realizing that something really bad happened to you yesterday. i sure did.

 

[vikinginferno]

In my mind, it is just idiotic that it is based on luck whether a team gets the first pick and is able to get the next Jordan or whether they get some scrub. I don't know a solution, I just think luck should not be part of the equation. I hate luck.

 

[SacKings7]

I understand why they have the lottery, I just agree with Warhawk that the percentages should be higher

 

[kupman]

I understand why they have the lottery, I just agree with Warhawk that the percentages should be higher

I think that it should be lower - much lower; like 1 out of 14. Each team that does not make the playoffs gets an equal chance at picks 1 -14.

This will stop the "tanking" that occurs every year starting at the All Star break. The same tanking that has been going on for years and years. It taints the credibility of the league and it is not fair to those teams still battling for play-off position. The goal should always be to win as many games as you can out of 82.

I do not wish to play sour grapes even today.

Sure I wish we would have gotten #1 and #2. However, I think that it is kind of crazy to ruminate about how ping pong balls bounce - I mean literally kind of crazy. Additionally, if I begin to believe that the future of this team largely depends on how ping pong balls fall rather than how we trade, draft, develop, and most of all, play on the court then I really begin to lose interest.

 

[Kings Faithful]

If anyones interested, at 4:30 Pacific on ESPN Classic their is a "Top Five Reasons You can't blame... Chris Webber for Michigan's loss in the 1993 NCAA final."

I think its quite fitting to our recent events and Chris Webbers luck.

 

[Telemachus]

Another thing I found amusing and annoying is that leading up to the lottery I heard Grant say, over and over, that you don't draft for need; you take the best player available. When the Kings got bumped to #4, he's suddenly talking about how Memphis and OKC don't need a point guard and might let Rubio slip. WTF?

It wasn't just Grant. I heard plenty of people on KHTK and on the message boards using this same rationalization, when most of them were talking BPA before the lotto.

Petrie's philosophy has always been to take the best player available (which I happen to agree with). However, every year I am shocked at how many teams don't follow that same philosophy.

I think the other thing you have to look at is where teams rank the players on their draft boards. Not everyone is in agreement that Rubio is the 2nd best talent in the draft this season. The only consensus I have seen is that Griffin is hands down the #1 pick.

If teams think that Rubio is close to Thabeet or Hardin (or someone else) talentwise, then they will draft the player that better fits their biggest need.

 

[Warhawk]

I think that it should be lower - much lower; like 1 out of 14. Each team that does not make the playoffs gets an equal chance at picks 1 -14.

This will stop the "tanking" that occurs every year starting at the All Star break. The same tanking that has been going on for years and years. It taints the credibility of the league and it is not fair to those teams still battling for play-off position. The goal should always be to win as many games as you can out of 82.

I do not wish to play sour grapes even today.

Sure I wish we would have gotten #1 and #2. However, I think that it is kind of crazy to ruminate about how ping pong balls bounce - I mean literally kind of crazy. Additionally, if I begin to believe that the future of this team largely depends on how ping pong balls fall rather than how we trade, draft, develop, and most of all, play on the court then I really begin to lose interest.

Problem is, we didn't tank, we suck. And under that system we could end up at #14 and NEVER get better.

 

[Kingster]

Another thing I found amusing and annoying is that leading up to the lottery I heard Grant say, over and over, that you don't draft for need; you take the best player available. When the Kings got bumped to #4, he's suddenly talking about how Memphis and OKC don't need a point guard and might let Rubio slip. WTF?

It wasn't just Grant. I heard plenty of people on KHTK and on the message boards using this same rationalization, when most of them were talking BPA before the lotto.

Petrie's philosophy has always been to take the best player available (which I happen to agree with). However, every year I am shocked at how many teams don't follow that same philosophy.

I think the other thing you have to look at is where teams rank the players on their draft boards. Not everyone is in agreement that Rubio is the 2nd best talent in the draft this season. The only consensus I have seen is that Griffin is hands down the #1 pick.

If teams think that Rubio is close to Thabeet or Hardin (or someone else) talentwise, then they will draft the player that better fits their biggest need.

I heard the same thing from Grant. Laughed my arse off. One minute, Rubio isn't the guy, next minute - maybe we can get him at #4! Napear is a piece of work.

As for BPA, there's no doubt in my mind that if the Kings believe that two guys are close in talent, one a non-point guard, the other a point guard, they are going to jump for the pg. They are going to look backwards and forwards at Evans, Jennings, Rubio and every other pg. Other than a center, it's the toughest position to fill. They know they may not be high in the draft again so they better make hay...

 

[Kingster]

I disagree - the worst team should have a better chance of getting a number 1 pick than a number 4, and should get a better shot at #1 than 25%. Maybe 40-30-20-10 as far as percentages go (for the sake of arguement)? I mean, really, is it fair that a team that tries but sucks into the worst record in the league gets stuck with the #4 pick more often than #1?

Totally agree. And I like the percentage that you came up with. A one in four chance is ridiculous for the worst team in the league. One of these years you're going to have a team have the worst record, get the fourth pick, and then the next year have the worst record, and get the fourth pick. The suicides will probably cause the league to rethink things....

 

[JB_kings]

I'm not really sure the NBA is so much concerned about tanking as much as they are about putting on a media show. It becomes a promotional event and garners a lot of attention. Yes tanking was an issue, but isn't it still? Just goes by the name of a ping pong ball numbers, but it's still tanking.

The idea of a draft is to get the worse teams the chance to draft the better players. It's not a circus show, it's supposed to be about team improvement. The NBA is stealing some league promotion at the expense of the bad teams. You know, a team like the Kings who were the worst team and needed the most boost from getting a good player got the shaft. It's selfish of the league to do it this way.

It would be different if this was a rare thing to have happen, but it's rare that the worst team gets the #1 pick. That shows the system isn't working. Was the Rockets tanking to get Olajuwon 25 years ago really that bad so that dozens of teams over two decades get screwed to make up for it? Not really. It's all about league promotion over team improvement now and it's wrong.