Tankathon in effect? Joerger says 2 vets will rest each game (split)

Capt. Factorial

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#211
#211
Suicide King said:
I won't even get into the fact that:

"The odds of each team landing the No. 1 overall pick may be determined by regular season record, but those teams don't always see the balls bounce in their favor. In fact, since the lottery was implemented in 1985, only six teams with the highest odds of landing the top pick actually landed it."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-lottery-history-no-1-overall-pick/101752858/
Click to expand...
There are a couple - in fact, quite a few - technicalities on this statement.

First off, although the lottery was instituted in 1985, it was not until 1990 that any weighting existed. Before that, each team had the same odds of winning, so the lotteries before that don't really speak to the probability of the team with the highest odds winning.

Then between 1990-1993 (four lotteries) the odds of the worst team winning were 1 in 6. The worst team won once, so they actually did a tiny bit better than expected during that short time frame.

Then the odds of the worst team winning were raised to 25% - this percentage has been in effect for 24 drafts. In 24 drafts, you would expect the worst team to win about 6 times. And the worst team has won 4+2 times. What do I mean by that? Well, for one, in the 2003 draft two teams tied for the worst record and had the same number of combos - one of those (CLE) did win. For the other, in the 1996 draft the Grizzlies had the worst record but were not allowed (by expansion rules - they were an expansion team that season) to get the #1 pick, and Philly, who had the worst record among teams eligible for the #1 pick, did get it. So it's basically 6 out of 24 as expected.

My point is that teams win the lottery just about as often as they should be expected to, given the actual odds. That's not terribly surprising. But the bolded part of the quote above suggests that the worst teams don't win as often as they should be expected to - but in fact they do.
 
Suicide King

Suicide King

Starter
#213
#213
Capt. Factorial said:
There are a couple - in fact, quite a few - technicalities on this statement.

First off, although the lottery was instituted in 1985, it was not until 1990 that any weighting existed. Before that, each team had the same odds of winning, so the lotteries before that don't really speak to the probability of the team with the highest odds winning.

Then between 1990-1993 (four lotteries) the odds of the worst team winning were 1 in 6. The worst team won once, so they actually did a tiny bit better than expected during that short time frame.

Then the odds of the worst team winning were raised to 25% - this percentage has been in effect for 24 drafts. In 24 drafts, you would expect the worst team to win about 6 times. And the worst team has won 4+2 times. What do I mean by that? Well, for one, in the 2003 draft two teams tied for the worst record and had the same number of combos - one of those (CLE) did win. For the other, in the 1996 draft the Grizzlies had the worst record but were not allowed (by expansion rules - they were an expansion team that season) to get the #1 pick, and Philly, who had the worst record among teams eligible for the #1 pick, did get it. So it's basically 6 out of 24 as expected.

My point is that teams win the lottery just about as often as they should be expected to, given the actual odds. That's not terribly surprising. But the bolded part of the quote above suggests that the worst teams don't win as often as they should be expected to - but in fact they do.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information Capt.
The article is also a little dated, but my point wasn't to imply the results don't match the odds, rather to illustrate the percentage with actual results.

I am also testing a personal theory on "How to ensure certain posters reply to your post" :D ( I kid)
 
gunks

gunks

Hall of Famer
#214
#214
Personally, the fact that the worst record is a guarantee that we'd pick no lower than 4th in a draft that, according to most experts, has 5 kids that could conceivably go #1 is reason enough to be down with sucking this year.

I feel like we're going to end up with Young no matter where we end up lotto wise though. Vivek has to be chomping at the bit over the kid.
 
Mike

Mike

Bench
#220
#220
Joshoua said:
Dallas has caught us we are tied at 4 now we’re not catch Orlando or Atlanta those tanks are serious
Click to expand...
Orlando is a strange one because I don't think they are actually tanking. They seem to play with effort and tend to play games close, but they seem incapable of getting over the line and putting a run of wins together. If they sell the like of Fournier, Payton etc at the deadline then I'd say they are committing to tanking. If they don't they might continue trying to be competitive but most likely failing and ending up with a bad record, though ideally they'll get just enough wins to play themselves out of the top pick.
 
Tetsujin

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
#221
#221
Mike said:
Orlando is a strange one because I don't think they are actually tanking. They seem to play with effort and tend to play games close, but they seem incapable of getting over the line and putting a run of wins together. If they sell the like of Fournier, Payton etc at the deadline then I'd say they are committing to tanking. If they don't they might continue trying to be competitive but most likely failing and ending up with a bad record, though ideally they'll get just enough wins to play themselves out of the top pick.
Click to expand...
Do-Not-Google and Payton are two of the "young guys" on that team though. Selling talent to pursue a tank is a proven tank strategy but selling young talent in order to be in a better position to draft more young talent generally doesn't work out that great. I could see them shuttling Vuc off to a contender at the deadline though (Side note: If the Pels are really serious about still making a run for the playoffs without Boogie, Vucevic could be a good candidate for the "plug into Boogie's spot in the rotation and hope he doesn't completely suck" slot on their roster).
 
Mike

Mike

Bench
#222
#222
Tetsujin said:
Do-Not-Google and Payton are two of the "young guys" on that team though. Selling talent to pursue a tank is a proven tank strategy but selling young talent in order to be in a better position to draft more young talent generally doesn't work out that great. I could see them shuttling Vuc off to a contender at the deadline though (Side note: If the Pels are really serious about still making a run for the playoffs without Boogie, Vucevic could be a good candidate for the "plug into Boogie's spot in the rotation and hope he doesn't completely suck" slot on their roster).
Click to expand...
The reason they might trade Payton is if they decide he's not worth extending. He's in line for a contract with his rookie deal coming to an end. So far in his career he's either been pretty good or pretty average. Last year pre and post all star game was a prime example of that.

Fournier is a good player, but he would need to revert back to SG if the Magic extend Gordon since they'll likely want him and Isaac to man the forward spots. Plus if they are in asset acquiring mode Fournier and Vucevic are arguably their most appealing players.

It is worth noting they have a new front office so outside of Isaac and additions this year, they have no ties to the previous acquisitions. They've been stuck in the lottery since Howard and are not in a great cap situation either, so they have two reasons to sell: 1 clear space, 2 get rid of the lacklustre players that haven't helped them rebuild successfully. I agree that shipping out young talent isn't ideal, but I can see why they are ready to blow it up.
 
E

ESP47

All-Star
#223
#223
Suicide King said:
Barring us deliberately throwing games I want the best pick possible same as everyone else. However to say any win is pointless is where I disagree. Until we can quantify what winning a game does for the players we already have on the roster, I don't see how we can say they are pointless.

I won't even get into the fact that:

"The odds of each team landing the No. 1 overall pick may be determined by regular season record, but those teams don't always see the balls bounce in their favor. In fact, since the lottery was implemented in 1985, only six teams with the highest odds of landing the top pick actually landed it."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-lottery-history-no-1-overall-pick/101752858/
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure no young player has ever said that they thought they were on their way out of the league until a 31 year old journeyman player caught fire in Orlando and shot the team to victory in a career night. I don't for once believe that losing games your rookie year turns you into a perennial loser. These guys have won their entire lives, they aren't going to become losers after one season.

What's the point of the latter part of your post? Hey if you're a "let the chips fall where they may" type person, then that's fine. But I'm more of a strategic type and I'll play the odds. It's why Vegas is what it is. I don't care what some obscure stat says. The odds always win. It's not even an argument.

Warhawk said:
Oh, so maybe we would have gotten Derrick Favors instead of DMC? Or gotten Tristan Thompson? Or maybe Anthony Bennett, right? Greg Oden, Derrick Coleman, and Pervis Ellison also say "hi". There were "busts" (based on position taken in the draft) taken ahead of us just about every year, just like the ones we often made. The draft is not a panacea. Being higher helps, but you need to nail the picks wherever you are at. We haven't always done that.....and neither have others. Who is to say we wouldn't have made some of the same bad choices higher up in the draft anyways (at least some years)?

I am in no way arguing that a higher draft position doesn't help our cause, but last year had we been one position higher we wouldn't have jumped up like we did to get Fox. The draft is also a crap shoot in that way.
Click to expand...
What do you mean you aren't arguing that a higher draft position doesn't help our cause? You just spent a paragraph arguing just that.

If you have a crop of better players to choose from (picking higher in the draft) then your odds of picking a better player are higher. The Kings would have had higher odds of picking better players than they did. Maybe they would have picked all the same players but at least they would have had the other guys available to pick from. I don't care about Pervis or Oden or Bennett. I care about the odds. Greg Oden's career has zero bearing on whether or not I think that picking at the top of the draft is the best way to build a team. Just like IT becoming an all star after being selected at 60 has zero bearing on me ever thinking we will get a good player at 60 again.

Everyone keeps using absolutes here. I've never said picking at the top of the draft guarantees an all star. All I'm saying is that it ups your odds of finding one. The Kings need all the help they can get and draft positioning and players career trajectories are a proven fact. I'm not going to throw odds out the window because this player didn't work out one year at #1 and this player wound up better being picked at #10 and all that nonsense. It makes zero sense to play against the house when this year, the Kings can be the house themselves.
 
Suicide King

Suicide King

Starter
#224
#224
ESP47 said:
I'm pretty sure no young player has ever said that they thought they were on their way out of the league until a 31 year old journeyman player caught fire in Orlando and shot the team to victory in a career night. I don't for once believe that losing games your rookie year turns you into a perennial loser. These guys have won their entire lives, they aren't going to become losers after one season.

What's the point of the latter part of your post? Hey if you're a "let the chips fall where they may" type person, then that's fine. But I'm more of a strategic type and I'll play the odds. It's why Vegas is what it is. I don't care what some obscure stat says. The odds always win. It's not even an argument.
Click to expand...
1) I am not saying they instantly become of a loser mentality, that would be silly. I was saying sometimes the team pulling off a win now and then might have an effect on the players that can pay off in the future. We don't know. It also seems like Willie's contribution to the win vs. ORL , without which the win doesn't happen, does not count for development because...?....3rd year player?
2) I am not necessarily a "let the chips fall where they may" type. However in the instance of the ORL game, I doubt anyone expected such a game from Temple. Including Temple and Joerger. What would you have done differently?

We all want to get to the same destination and I respect you and the other posters here too much to "argue" which vehicle to use to get there. I go into every game we play this year noting the implications of a win or loss versus said team in regards to our draft pick. When caught up in the game though I can't bring myself to unhappiness when it looks like we may pull off a win.
 
kingsboi

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#225
#225
Mike said:
The reason they might trade Payton is if they decide he's not worth extending. He's in line for a contract with his rookie deal coming to an end. So far in his career he's either been pretty good or pretty average. Last year pre and post all star game was a prime example of that.

Fournier is a good player, but he would need to revert back to SG if the Magic extend Gordon since they'll likely want him and Isaac to man the forward spots. Plus if they are in asset acquiring mode Fournier and Vucevic are arguably their most appealing players.

It is worth noting they have a new front office so outside of Isaac and additions this year, they have no ties to the previous acquisitions. They've been stuck in the lottery since Howard and are not in a great cap situation either, so they have two reasons to sell: 1 clear space, 2 get rid of the lacklustre players that haven't helped them rebuild successfully. I agree that shipping out young talent isn't ideal, but I can see why they are ready to blow it up.
Click to expand...
The Magic are their own worst enemy, just like the Kings and their questionable drafting. If the Kings don't land a star player in either Fox, Giles or the 2018 draft, they may as well be in the Magic boat with a lot of quality young players that aren't cornerstones but complimentary players that can help teams win once they find that franchise player.
 
Warhawk

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#226
#226
ESP47 said:
What do you mean you aren't arguing that a higher draft position doesn't help our cause? You just spent a paragraph arguing just that. ....
Click to expand...
At no point did I argue that a higher pick isn't good. I just said it isn't a panacea. You can still choose poorly, you can do the best job you can and the player just doesn't pan out, the player can get hurt and end their career, etc. The draft class can suck and even the best player in the class doesn't amount to much. You can draft the best player and then not develop them properly and they don't amount to much. There are numerous things that can happen to make even the best "tank" job ineffective.

I like higher odds. I like more choices. But not at the expense of the players we do have that could get a lot better with good development. And that doesn't mean unlimited playing time for the younger players. That means development behind vets (as necessary) and good practices, etc. If Temple (for instance) had a great game and we end up winning, I'm not going to fret about it. I'm going to hope the youngsters learn something from the experience they can carry forward.
 
J

Joshoua

All-Star
#227
#227
I’m pro get as many wins as possible but if we go on a run thanks to the young guys then I’m all for it. A game like today is an example of it otherwise I want us to lose every road game from here on out only win for the home crowd
 
K

kingdivac

All-Star
#228
#228
(begin 1/2 snark) Tankathon is going to be especially difficult this year. The Kings are going to get a run for their money from at least 8 different other teams. Every loss counts - especially head-to-heads. Tie-breakers are a real possibility. As some have noted, the Kings may unfortunately go off the deep end and <gulp> win too many f$%$$n games!(end 1/2 snark)
I'll consider it ok if though if Hill gets traded and the Kings get Cleveland's 1st round pick somehow. Then next year go full-Bulls. Best case would be sans Hill and getting #17 and #1.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#229
#229
kingdivac said:
(begin 1/2 snark) Tankathon is going to be especially difficult this year. The Kings are going to get a run for their money from at least 8 different other teams. Every loss counts - especially head-to-heads. Tie-breakers are a real possibility. As some have noted, the Kings may unfortunately go off the deep end and <gulp> win too many f$%$$n games!(end 1/2 snark)
I'll consider it ok if though if Hill gets traded and the Kings get Cleveland's 1st round pick somehow. Then next year go full-Bulls. Best case would be sans Hill and getting #17 and #1.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Dream on. I'll predict right now if that's your base line for okay you're not gonna be happy.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#231
#231
kingdivac said:
Well when the team you like is at the bottom, there's not much more unhappy to grab from....
Click to expand...
Au contraire. If there's one thing I've learned it's to never challenge worse or any variation thereof. ;)

Logically, I think Cleveland's pick may be on it's way to the Clippers. As far as the Kings getting #1? I've been a Kings fan long enough to remember what happened the last time we got the #1 pick. It's been almost 30 years. His nickname in college was "Never Nervous." His nickname with the Kings? "Out of Service." I just don't have much faith in either #1 picks or the Kings' ability to get said pick.

But you dream what you dream and I'll dream what I dream. Bottom line? Que sera sera.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#236
#236
sactowndog said:
Apparently someone forgot to tell Turner.
Click to expand...
Joshoua said:
So much for Doncic, Ayton, or Bagley this is the definition of playing yourself.smh
Click to expand...
kingsboi said:
so much for sitting out two vets the last two games
Click to expand...
I just posted Carmichael Dave's tweet TWICE so nobody misses it. What Turner did tonight was undoubtedly exactly what the front office wanted him to do. He featured the guys who are on the block trade-wise. Isn't that what you guys have wanted? To trade the veterans?????
 
J

Joshoua

All-Star
#237
#237
VF21 said:
I just posted Carmichael Dave's tweet TWICE so nobody misses it. What Turner did tonight was undoubtedly exactly what the front office wanted him to do. He featured the guys who are on the block trade-wise. Isn't that what you guys have wanted? To trade the veterans?????
Click to expand...
Nobody is gonna be like oh snap you saw Temple play let’s give up more to get him, no they know who he is by now
 
J

Joshoua

All-Star
#238
#238
And Young just dropped 44-9 could’ve used him to trade up with a team higher than us to get a better player fit. But we probably playing ourselves out of that too
 
The Effort Police

The Effort Police

Starter
#239
#239
VF21 said:
I just posted Carmichael Dave's tweet TWICE so nobody misses it. What Turner did tonight was undoubtedly exactly what the front office wanted him to do. He featured the guys who are on the block trade-wise. Isn't that what you guys have wanted? To trade the veterans?????
Click to expand...
Since when are any of them other than Hill on the block? Last year Vlade had a whole bunch of vets including some expiring ones and failed to trade a single one of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.