Luka Doncic (the 'LET'S RE-LITIGATE THE PICK UNTO PERPETUITY~!' thread)

Hey, you brought @tyguy into this, not me: when the thesis is that a particular role has the greatest offensive value, over the course of the entire history of NBA, according to Metric X, and then you specifically rank players that the metric cannot accurately quantify, because the metric relies on statistics that were not recorded during all or part of that player's career, then I can absolutely do that. You invited the comparison, by citing @tyguy's post as a frame of reference.
Still, you dont need to interpret the metric in a way that its either a 100% accurate for the whole history of the Nba or if not it has 0 value. The metric is what it is, it provides large amount of data with results thah would be statistically significant. You can either use it as a one tool while recognizing its weaknesses or refuse to use it at all because it has some weaknesses.

Well, then it's not absolute. If you have to include all these qualifiers, then it's not absolute. Absolute unless one is elite, and the other is not, isn't absolute at all. That would also then invite a debate (one which EYE am not interested in participating in) about how do you define "elite"? For some values of elite, both Kemba Walker and Joel Embiid could be described as elite in their respective roles, and so an argument could be made that Walker is more valuable offensively than Embiid. Are you prepared to make that argument?
It really doesnt matter to me but the value being absolute itself to me means its absolute compared to values of other positions/skills. When that absolute value is used in other context, there are naturally other aspects that affect the value as a whole, then the positional value becomes only a part of the equation. That means that players value isnt absolutely the same as the value of his position/role. It means that his position/role is a part of his value and the other part is his skill and performance as a player (which is way bigger part).

And I specifically asked you about two players at the same level (Ball and Kuzma), and you did not answer me.
These are not two players at the same level. Offensively Kuzma is superior to Ball. Kuzma can create some for himself and possesses a lot better offensive skillset than Ball. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything since I've explained numerous times that being and ball handling creator doesnt make you a valuable player, your performance does. Then your position/role adds to it.

And another thing:
Could?!


I don't know how a reasonable person can feel, with anything resembling confidence, that it takes a "really long time" for radical shifts to occur in the NBA? If you're over the age of fifteen, you've already seen this happen in real time. If you're over the age of thirty, you've seen it happen twice, and if you're over the age of forty, you've seen it happen at least three times. Of course it's going to happen again, and history would suggest that it's going to happen a lot sooner than you'd expect it to.
This is purely an estimation of mine based on couple of things. First, the use of analytics and math has become so popular that this is basically the first time when its so well understood that what are efficent shots and what shots are not. When that is common knowledge, it gets harder and harder to become a visionary and invent something new. Also since the young people are starting to copy their game after Steph Curry and others, it will create more players in the future that represent this same line of thinking: generate a lot of 3 pointers, value offensive creators, try to get open layups and free throws and avoid mid range jumpers and contested post hook shots.

But thats just my estimation, I'm not willing to die on that hill. Its basically based on the assumption that with the amount of information and data available, its harder to invent something new.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
Still, you dont need to interpret the metric in a way that its either a 100% accurate for the whole history of the Nba or if not it has 0 value. The metric is what it is, it provides large amount of data with results thah would be statistically significant. You can either use it as a one tool while recognizing its weaknesses or refuse to use it at all because it has some weaknesses.
Once again, you (via quoting @tyguy 's post in another thread) invited this comparison, not me. You could have simply said that ball handling creator is the role that has the most value in this era of NBA basketball. That is not what you said; you specifically framed your argument in a way to invite the exact discussion that we are having, and now you are saying that I don't need to interpret the metric that way, as if that was not exactly the way you presented your thesis.

It really doesnt matter to me but the value being absolute itself to me means its absolute compared to values of other positions/skills. When that absolute value is used in other context, there are naturally other aspects that affect the value as a whole, then the positional value becomes only a part of the equation. That means that players value isnt absolutely the same as the value of his position/role. It means that his position/role is a part of his value and the other part is his skill and performance as a player (which is way bigger part).
That... is not what absolute means.

This is purely an estimation of mine based on couple of things. First, the use of analytics and math has become so popular that this is basically the first time when its so well understood that what are efficent shots and what shots are not. When that is common knowledge, it gets harder and harder to become a visionary and invent something new. Also since the young people are starting to copy their game after Steph Curry and others, it will create more players in the future that represent this same line of thinking: generate a lot of 3 pointers, value offensive creators, try to get open layups and free throws and avoid mid range jumpers and contested post hook shots.
So, you are essentially basing your estimation on the limits of your imagination. Off the top of my head, I can't think of what changes would most likely occur to effect another paradigm shift, either, but I also don't work in an NBA front office, or on an NBA coaching staff. As I alluded to in my comment about Ultron, I refuse to believe that "three is more than two" represents the pinnacle of the evolution of NBA basketball. We've reached the summit, folks! There are no more new ideas... I guess I'd like to believe that the people who are getting paid seven-figure salaries to work in this industry aren't constrained by the same imagination as you and I. There's got to be a reasonably intelligent person somewhere in an NBA office, working on a way to apply analytic data in ways we haven't thought up yet, which will change the way that NBA basketball is being played, again. And I don't think it's going to take another quarter century for that to happen.
 
Once again, you (via quoting @tyguy 's post in another thread) invited this comparison, not me. You could have simply said that ball handling creator is the role that has the most value in this era of NBA basketball. That is not what you said; you specifically framed your argument in a way to invite the exact discussion that we are having, and now you are saying that I don't need to interpret the metric that way, as if that was not exactly the way you presented your thesis.
First of all my argument has always been centered on this current era. The statistical analysis of tyguy is just a one tool to evaluate this value of diffrrent roles/positions. To me what the game was in the 70's and so on is not so interesting because its a lot different than it is today.

That... is not what absolute means.
The value of a role/position doesnt change, it remains the same no matter what, its absolute. The value of a player consists of different factors and the value of a role/position is one of those factors. The positional value remains the same, but when it is used to evaluate the value of a player, the positional value only contributes to the value of a player since they are two completely different things.

So, you are essentially basing your estimation on the limits of your imagination. Off the top of my head, I can't think of what changes would most likely occur to effect another paradigm shift, either, but I also don't work in an NBA front office, or on an NBA coaching staff. As I alluded to in my comment about Ultron, I refuse to believe that "three is more than two" represents the pinnacle of the evolution of NBA basketball. We've reached the summit, folks! There are no more new ideas... I guess I'd like to believe that the people who are getting paid seven-figure salaries to work in this industry aren't constrained by the same imagination as you and I. There's got to be a reasonably intelligent person somewhere in an NBA office, working on a way to apply analytic data in ways we haven't thought up yet, which will change the way that NBA basketball is being played, again. And I don't think it's going to take another quarter century for that to happen.
Thats why this is a fascinating topic. Its not easy to predict what will happen, obviously there will be constant evolving but since the amount of knowledge and information out there, imo its reasonable to assume that another significant change will take a little longer since its not that easy anymore to invent new things. When you have so good understanding on efficency in general, its harder to come up with new ways to be more efficent.

I dont think that seeking for open layups, free throws and open threes will change any time soon. The biggest changes will probably be on how the defense tries to eliminate those and how the offense will counter that. Switching has already become a very popular startegy, I'm expecting that there will be more and more strategies against switching defenses like screening the screener ect. But as I said this is not a hill I'm willing to die on, its just an estimation I have made without giving it too much thought.


I guess I'd like to believe that the people who are getting paid seven-figure salaries to work in this industry aren't constrained by the same imagination as you and I.
To me this is always a very bad take. These multimillionare GM's make bad decisions constantly. A follower of the sport who is eager to learn has so much information available to himself that they are more than capable of forming opinions that cannot be judged as uneducated because "they dont work for a Nbs franchise and make millions doing that". I could give multiple examples about stupid things only this franchise has made that I heavily disagreed with and that turned out that I was right and the multimillionare making the decisions was wrong. That doesnt mean that I should be a GM but it means that its not fair to assume someones educated opinion is basically worthless because he is not getting paid millions for it by a Nba franchise.
 
First of all my argument has always been centered on this current era. The statistical analysis of tyguy is just a one tool to evaluate this value of diffrrent roles/positions. To me what the game was in the 70's and so on is not so interesting because its a lot different than it is today.



The value of a role/position doesnt change, it remains the same no matter what, its absolute. The value of a player consists of different factors and the value of a role/position is one of those factors. The positional value remains the same, but when it is used to evaluate the value of a player, the positional value only contributes to the value of a player since they are two completely different things.



Thats why this is a fascinating topic. Its not easy to predict what will happen, obviously there will be constant evolving but since the amount of knowledge and information out there, imo its reasonable to assume that another significant change will take a little longer since its not that easy anymore to invent new things. When you have so good understanding on efficency in general, its harder to come up with new ways to be more efficent.

I dont think that seeking for open layups, free throws and open threes will change any time soon. The biggest changes will probably be on how the defense tries to eliminate those and how the offense will counter that. Switching has already become a very popular startegy, I'm expecting that there will be more and more strategies against switching defenses like screening the screener ect. But as I said this is not a hill I'm willing to die on, its just an estimation I have made without giving it too much thought.




To me this is always a very bad take. These multimillionare GM's make bad decisions constantly. A follower of the sport who is eager to learn has so much information available to himself that they are more than capable of forming opinions that cannot be judged as uneducated because "they dont work for a Nbs franchise and make millions doing that". I could give multiple examples about stupid things only this franchise has made that I heavily disagreed with and that turned out that I was right and the multimillionare making the decisions was wrong. That doesnt mean that I should be a GM but it means that its not fair to assume someones educated opinion is basically worthless because he is not getting paid millions for it by a Nba franchise.
Hypothetical. Rockets style of play becomes "unwatchable," fans become disinterested. Fans attendance, viewership goes down meaning revenue goes down. What rule changes might they incorporate to make the game more attractive? Just a hypothetical, the business is entertainment. Change the rules, values can change.

But that is neither here or now.
 
Soooooooooo... what are those manufactured reasons for not taking him again lately?

Fit and team building? Well, right now we're getting arguments that despite playing like complete butt that Bjelica is STILL the better fit with Fox and that Bagley hinders Fox because he's not a great shooter and clogs the paint.

Character/too many guys wanting to be the alpha? Well, Bagley just took a shot at Joerger for not allowing him to be his ultra alpha self.

So, yeah.
 
Soooooooooo... what are those manufactured reasons for not taking him again lately?

Fit and team building? Well, right now we're getting arguments that despite playing like complete butt that Bjelica is STILL the better fit with Fox and that Bagley hinders Fox because he's not a great shooter and clogs the paint.

Character/too many guys wanting to be the alpha? Well, Bagley just took a shot at Joerger for not allowing him to be his ultra alpha self.

So, yeah.
We’re on to he’s a terrible defender with one poster saying he just stands in the low block to grab rebounds
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
Soooooooooo... what are those manufactured reasons for not taking him again lately?

Fit and team building? Well, right now we're getting arguments that despite playing like complete butt that Bjelica is STILL the better fit with Fox and that Bagley hinders Fox because he's not a great shooter and clogs the paint.

Character/too many guys wanting to be the alpha? Well, Bagley just took a shot at Joerger for not allowing him to be his ultra alpha self.

So, yeah.
1. This whole thread is about answering your poke-the-stick question, of which you are obviously well aware.

2. Bagley IYO took a shot at Joerger, which is being thoroughly debated/discussed elsewhere.

At this point, you really need to put a little distance between yourself and the Trollville city limits.
 
Credit where it’s due, in his first career start Bagley showing well. Showing what he did tonight some more, getting confidence and improving in areas that need work could slow the thread
 
It's unfathomable that the Kings passed on Luka because of "fit". Don't these GM's ever learn that you draft the best player available. Phoenix and Atlanta are apparently just stupid but it sucks that the Kings are lumped in with them.

You don't get 30/8/8 as a rookie and then follow it up the next game with 35/12/10 (along with all the clutch shots and other big games throughout the season) unless you are a truly special franchise player.
 
Luka is a beast, and I've never really gotten over Vlade passing on him.

All these crazy Lebronesque statlines he's having lately don't help.

That being said, I think we'll all feel less crappy about it in a few seasons. Bagley has nutty potential, but like Fox last season, we're gonna have to be patient before he starts flashing what got him drafted.

I know everyone hates the Luka topic, but we all just have to get used to it. He's the real deal and Vlade passed on him. We're gonna be talking about him for years! :eek:
 
Luka is a beast, and I've never really gotten over Vlade passing on him.

All these crazy Lebronesque statlines he's having lately don't help.

That being said, I think we'll all feel less crappy about it in a few seasons. Bagley has nutty potential, but like Fox last season, we're gonna have to be patient before he starts flashing what got him drafted.

I know everyone hates the Luka topic, but we all just have to get used to it. He's the real deal and Vlade passed on him. We're gonna be talking about him for years! :eek:
And one thing about "passing on him" that is different from other years is that he was arguably an obvious choice. It isn't a case of Giannis or Kawhi or some of these other guys where nobody imagined they'd be this good.
 
And one thing about "passing on him" that is different from other years is that he was arguably an obvious choice. It isn't a case of Giannis or Kawhi or some of these other guys where nobody imagined they'd be this good.
Same video I posted before the draft
Starring Vlade Divac as Peter Griffin, Luka Doncic as the boat, Marvin Bagley as the mistery box.
 
It’s threads like this constantly coming up about Luka that really makes me wish Joeger would just start Bagley already and play him 35+ minutes a game.

Why? Because I think Bagley would be averaging close to 20 pts and 10 rebounds per game as a starter.

That way we can stop re-hashing the draft every other day and stop starting a new thread about Luka (who BTW isn’t on our Kings) every other day! :mad:
 
Last edited:
Some of y’all might wanna go see DSJ numbers and play since he came back, fitting it very nicely with Luka. Crazy that they’d need more than 20 games together to start to gel right.

Gonna have to change the narrative of Luka can’t play with Fox/Smith (PGs) to something else pretty soon
 
Some of y’all might wanna go see DSJ numbers and play since he came back, fitting it very nicely with Luka. Crazy that they’d need more than 20 games together to start to gel right.

Gonna have to change the narrative of Luka can’t play with Fox/Smith (PGs) to something else pretty soon
Weren't some you all saying the problems between them was all because Smith was hot garbage? He said, she said and the truth is somewhere in between.
 
Right, first he’s hot garbage and that’s why he’s not fitting with luka and now Luka is making him better. You just basically say whatever to fit the narrative
Haha that’s rich!!

First euroleague sucks
Than euroleague moves won’t transfer over.

I can literally make a book of dumb stuff that was said and is said about Luka.

We’re onto Tyreke was good than fell off just think how dumb that is
 

Seriously though. Bagley's tenacity and athleticism are already showing what he can be with more experience and strength. I think he is going to be one of the best rebounders in the game with the ability to go right back up for a basket after an offensive rebound. That alone will net the Kings a several point swing most games. He's also showing potential to be a great blocker. When he gets stronger he should be able to neutralize opposing big men. With the ball he will also be able to beat other big men with his quickness, and he's showing a great mid range touch if that isn't the best option. And of course he's great for running the floor. He will be scary good on both ends of the floor. Everybody knew Luka was the most NBA ready. Don't let the present cloud what the future could (will) be.
 
It’s threads like this constantly coming up about Luka that really makes me wish Joeger would just start Bagley already and play him 35+ minutes a game.

Why? Because I think Bagley would be averaging close to 20 pts and 10 rebounds per game as a starter.
Cool. And then? I really don't see the point. I'd rather see quality minutes over quantity minutes.