The Predictive Power Of Point Differential (Kings = -0.8)

[funkykingston]

No, I am not making his point for him. You are convoluting arguments. The entire thread is predicated on point differential that was calculated with our best, and most important player playing. When you take that out of the equation it's a completely different discussion. The discussion is then something like how good are the Kings without Cousins, I assume you can see how that is something much different than point differential as a predictive measurement.

If the point is to say that when everything breaks right for the Kings they are almost a playoff team that's fine but relatively meaningless. Things don't always break right.

Cousins has missed an average of 12-13 games per season (due to injuries, rest and suspensions)and the Kings have an awful record in those 60+ games over that span. It's definitely part of the why they've failed to make the playoffs. But while taking away the games Boogie misses when looking at the stats puts a much better shine on things it doesn't change the end result.

And Brick's analysis wasn't that teams with a positive point differential only when their best player(s) are playing make the playoffs. It was that teams with a positive point differential over all 82 games do.

Those 82 games will include some that Cousins misses. Those games count in the statiatics too regardless of why Boogie misses them or how dependent the team is on him.

 

[bajaden]

That about sums it up as far as I know. But in order to attain Boogie, the Kings had to have a top 5 pick and that was a consensus pick too so there was no way they could of messed that one up even if they want to. Hell, looking at it, he developed into more than I ever thought he could become in spite of all the turmoil which speaks volumes on his skill set and work ethic. That said, this team desperately needs a top 5 pick IMO...no way around it really because drafting 7-10 every year is not getting it done, no matter how many all-stars were passed up by this team.

Actually, at the time of the Cousins pick, there were quite a few people on this forum that didn't want Cousins, and there was a lot of bad PR going around about him, so it wouldn't have surprised that many people if he had slid even further. Of course I was a big fan of drafting Cousins, so I was a happy man when we did.

I totally agree with your other point. The higher you pick, the better chance you have of getting a good player. Of course that doesn't mean you can't get one later in the draft. Were just talking about odds here. That's why making the playoffs is almost fools gold. You lose your draft pick, and after the season, almost half the team is gone through freeagency. So what exactly did you accomplish? It's nothing but a feel good victory. We need to abandon this, "Grab the eighth seed" agenda, and go with a "Lets build a 2nd or 3rd seed team". The worse spot you can be in is to win somewhere between 34 games and 45 games every year.

Your never in position to get a top pick, and you'll never build a team that can move out of that range. We need to stop being the Sacramento Gleaners, looking for the leagues leftovers to build on. Lets get this guy, or lets get that guy. All those "Guys" were drafted. The draft works, but you have to know how to work it. If you look at the top contending teams, most of the players on those teams were drafted by them. Yeah, they may have added a piece or two through freeagency, for the most part, the important players, Lillard/McCollum, Curry/Thompson, Duncan/Parker/Leonard, and up until this year, Westbrook/Durant, were all drafted by the team their on. It can be done!!!!

Confucius say, he who lives in the past, has no future. We have to stop living in the past, the good and the bad, and start living in the now. You can't change the past, but you can certainly change the future. I have no idea how good or bad a GM Vlade is going to be, but he has surrounded himself with very good and experienced people. Hopefully he's rebuilding our scouting dept, which was at one time, one of the best, especially in Europe. Lest people forget, Petrie was one of the first GM's to start digging through the European leagues for players. Lets build a contender instead of a pretender. Please!!!

 

[kingsboi]

Actually, at the time of the Cousins pick, there were quite a few people on this forum that didn't want Cousins, and there was a lot of bad PR going around about him, so it wouldn't have surprised that many people if he had slid even further. Of course I was a big fan of drafting Cousins, so I was a happy man when we did.

I totally agree with your other point. The higher you pick, the better chance you have of getting a good player. Of course that doesn't mean you can't get one later in the draft. Were just talking about odds here. That's why making the playoffs is almost fools gold. You lose your draft pick, and after the season, almost half the team is gone through freeagency. So what exactly did you accomplish? It's nothing but a feel good victory. We need to abandon this, "Grab the eighth seed" agenda, and go with a "Lets build a 2nd or 3rd seed team". The worse spot you can be in is to win somewhere between 34 games and 45 games every year.

Your never in position to get a top pick, and you'll never build a team that can move out of that range. We need to stop being the Sacramento Gleaners, looking for the leagues leftovers to build on. Lets get this guy, or lets get that guy. All those "Guys" were drafted. The draft works, but you have to know how to work it. If you look at the top contending teams, most of the players on those teams were drafted by them. Yeah, they may have added a piece or two through freeagency, for the most part, the important players, Lillard/McCollum, Curry/Thompson, Duncan/Parker/Leonard, and up until this year, Westbrook/Durant, were all drafted by the team their on. It can be done!!!!

Confucius say, he who lives in the past, has no future. We have to stop living in the past, the good and the bad, and start living in the now. You can't change the past, but you can certainly change the future. I have no idea how good or bad a GM Vlade is going to be, but he has surrounded himself with very good and experienced people. Hopefully he's rebuilding our scouting dept, which was at one time, one of the best, especially in Europe. Lest people forget, Petrie was one of the first GM's to start digging through the European leagues for players. Lets build a contender instead of a pretender. Please!!!

He definitely had red flags coming out of Kentucky, hence the reason he dropped to 5. Let's be realistic though, despite the negatives, the Kings couldn't afford to pass up on a talent like that considering the team desperately needed a talent with that type of skill set and potential.

 

[Blob]

Nice try. Point differential was not working in the Kings favor until they destroyed the Mavs without Bogut and Barrea (+31) and the Lakers on a back-to back (+24), a team I told you would be 5 games under .500 a few weeks after you complimented them for beating the transitioning Dubs.

So if you offset these victories which in their context are NOT impressive, their point differential is NOT indicative that their record should be much better from where it is. The Kings are a BAD team in desperate need of shake-up via trade and line-up change. I'd start by making Temple full-time starter and seeking to move Koufos, Rudy, Affalo, Willie, and pretty much anyone else not named Boogie to the highest and most respectable bidder.

I cannot believe I once thought Koufos was a player. He has the worst shooting touch of any player I have seen in 25 years of watching the NBA. It is almost like his hands have a permanent spastic cramp. I say this guy has oven mitts for hands but that is not derogatory enough. He's becoming unbearable. To anyone to whom I defended this guy, I apologize. I was wrong. Koufos is as good at basketball as he is at maintaining a hairline.

Speaking of not good, Affalo is BAD....and other than being slightly deceived by pre-season in which he showed some post-up skill, we knew this. Then there is the punk who choked a woman in NYC. Barnes does not belong in the NBA and perhaps not among free citizens. Then there's WCS. Willie has not got a tough rebound all year.

SO any defense of this team and argument that they should be better than where they are comes in this context. We have bad and underachieving players commensurate with a team that wins 20-25 games. Moreover there is NO reason to have ANY confidence in Rudy as a defender, now or going forward.

One of the reasons for Kings dominant 3rd quarter against the Lakers is because Rudy was sidelined, and Omri stepped in and played with energy and vigor that Rudy seems incapable of. Rudy may swipe at the ball and swat at shot from weak side every now and then, but he's a defensive HOLE, along with Barnes, Marco-level incompetent, along with limited mobility guys like Koufos and Affalo. So given these obvious weaknesses let's not pretend this team should be near .500.

We need a trade. We need a new starting SG. We need fresh legs whether Malachi or Skal or someone currently on another roster. I have watched enough basketball to discern the difference between contender and pretender, and this team falls into the latter category if I've ever seen one.

Note: I did not mention Boogie in this rant. But he's not immune from criticism either. Like clockwork, he's doing his similar December fade from a season ago, gaining in impatience and frustration as the losses mount. Where we need guidance and leadership, Boogie is cursing out opposing coach and getting technicals. In the grand scheme, this is a minor irritant, but symbolic of our chronic ineptitude.

 

[mac]

Go ahead, if you think the Dirk who said he might be retiring this summer has anywhere near the impact on his team as Cousins take out the data from that game. That's ok to do. The stats are just stats, we as analysts have to give them context.

LOL... maybe when we've thrown in the towel at the end of the season and are resting players we can appeal to make the playoffs on the basis that those games don't count and we should take our differential as of 13th December instead.

 

[whoopdeedoo]

LOL... maybe when we've thrown in the towel at the end of the season and are resting players we can appeal to make the playoffs on the basis that those games don't count and we should take our differential as of 13th December instead.

What does that have to do with anything? This thread is about how, through 24 games, the Kings are not a bad team when using point differential as a predictor. That we likely will win between 38-44 and sneak into the playoffs. It CLEARLY SPELLS OUT if our point differential stayed at the level when calculated we have a shot at finishing that way.

We may not be finishing games now, but if our point differential remains at this level, history says we will sooner or later.

Things change. People get injured. Players get traded. I don't see anyone arguing that. Try to stay on topic.

 

[peacelate]

Point Per Game Differential is something that should be evaluated in real time looking at where a team theoretically should be, not where it's going to be.

The Kings have been the healthiest team in the NBA thus far. Point differential is based on a Kings' team that has been the healthiest in the NBA. Do we realistically expect that to continue?

 

[Bricklayer]

Point Per Game Differential is something that should be evaluated in real time looking at where a team theoretically should be, not where it's going to be.

The Kings have been the healthiest team in the NBA thus far. Point differential is based on a Kings' team that has been the healthiest in the NBA. Do we realistically expect that to continue?

I think there are about 2 guys who really matter on that front. 3 maybe with Temple. Otherwise we have lots of mediocre depth. And we've already essentially had an injury to our starting PG for 8 games.

 

[whoopdeedoo]

Point Per Game Differential is something that should be evaluated in real time looking at where a team theoretically should be, not where it's going to be.

The Kings have been the healthiest team in the NBA thus far. Point differential is based on a Kings' team that has been the healthiest in the NBA. Do we realistically expect that to continue?

I have no idea if the Kings have been the healthiest, but so far the most important part has been (crosses fingers). I would guess since health/suspension fall into nearly the same category the suspension of Collison keeps us from being the healthiest. To answer the reasonable question though, no, I don't think the most important piece in Cousins will miss only 1 out of 25 games this year.

 

[peacelate]

I have no idea if the Kings have been the healthiest, but so far the most important part has been (crosses fingers). I would guess since health/suspension fall into nearly the same category the suspension of Collison keeps us from being the healthiest. To answer the reasonable question though, no, I don't think the most important piece in Cousins will miss only 1 out of 25 games this year.

 

[Amit149]

What does that have to do with anything? This thread is about how, through 24 games, the Kings are not a bad team when using point differential as a predictor. That we likely will win between 38-44 and sneak into the playoffs. It CLEARLY SPELLS OUT if our point differential stayed at the level when calculated we have a shot at finishing that way.


Things change. People get injured. Players get traded. I don't see anyone arguing that. Try to stay on topic.

It's such a weird argument to make, as far as I can tell the thread isn't named "the predictive power of point differential calculated after 24 games".
You can cherry pick when to calculate it to prove your narrative or try to reason which games should count and which shouldn't but that's taking us from trusting point differential and into your subjective opinion.

In any case, like hrdboild said, if you're trying to make a point of a stat and it's so shaky one game can skew it, it's probably not the best thing to trust.

 

[whoopdeedoo]

View attachment 6039

Neat site, just signed up. Even if you throw in the Collison's missed games we are top 5 in health. Also supports what Brick said about our mediocre depth as although we are the healthiest team 12 teams had a lower VORP. Even our rookies made it onto that site, we lead the league in dnp/injured/dleague by 17!

 

[whoopdeedoo]

It's such a weird argument to make, as far as I can tell the thread isn't named "the predictive power of point differential calculated after 24 games".
You can cherry pick when to calculate it to prove your narrative or try to reason which games should count and which shouldn't but that's taking us from trusting point differential and into your subjective opinion.

In any case, like hrdboild said, if you're trying to make a point of a stat and it's so shaky one game can skew it, it's probably not the best thing to trust.

How is it weird to use 24 games as the cutoff? The original post was showing the Kings current differential (calculated after 24 games) and where it stands compared to recent history. You call it cherry picking, I call it dealing with outliers. Removing the Dallas game and the Houston game to more accurately portray the numbers shouldn't be a big issue. I don't know why you bring "trust" into the conversation. It's just data. It's accurate. The current numbers will change.

Please tell me if I am wrong, but I have not seen anyone betting their life on these numbers staying the same or saying how much they may deviate when it's all said and done. Only that this one particular calculation shows the Kings are not absolutely terrible, and things are a bit better than it may seem, at the moment.

 

[Amit149]

How is it weird to use 24 games as the cutoff? The original post was showing the Kings current differential (calculated after 24 games) and where it stands compared to recent history. You call it cherry picking, I call it dealing with outliers. Removing the Dallas game and the Houston game to more accurately portray the numbers shouldn't be a big issue. I don't know why you bring "trust" into the conversation. It's just data. It's accurate. The current numbers will change.

Please tell me if I am wrong, but I have not seen anyone betting their life on these numbers staying the same or saying how much they may deviate when it's all said and done. Only that this one particular calculation shows the Kings are not absolutely terrible, and things are a bit better than it may seem, at the moment.

It's weird to have a cutoff period.
If you are basing it on data than the thing to look at is the current data.

If you want to make an alternative point on the predictive power of point differential of games you think are worthy- go ahead and make that point, but the original post was mainly about showing that point differential has some predictive power based on past precedent- and the numbers used in the precedent included all the games.

And again, if your point is so sensitive it can get completely skewed by one game it's probably not a good source to rely on.

 

[whoopdeedoo]

It's weird to have a cutoff period.
If you are basing it on data than the thing to look at is the current data.

If you want to make an alternative point on the predictive power of point differential of games you think are worthy- go ahead and make that point, but the original post was mainly about showing that point differential has some predictive power based on past precedent- and the numbers used in the precedent included all the games.

And again, if your point is so sensitive it can get completely skewed by one game it's probably not a good source to rely on.

Sigh, it's not a cut off period. If I implied that it was that isn't what I am aiming for. The 23 or 24 (remove dallas and houston) "cut off" is simply a way to deal with outliers which can be greatly influence the numbers before a full season can even them out a bit. Surely you see why you would need to take into account other factors? If the first game of the season Boogie scored 2 point in the first 30 seconds and then sat out, and the next game he scored 30 causing his PPG to be completely skewed would you find that first game a valuable data point to include when trying to predict his future PPG? That's all that's happening here.

 

[Amit149]

Sigh, it's not a cut off period. If I implied that it was that isn't what I am aiming for. The 23 or 24 (remove dallas and houston) "cut off" is simply a way to deal with outliers which can be greatly influence the numbers before a full season can even them out a bit. Surely you see why you would need to take into account other factors? If the first game of the season Boogie scored 2 point in the first 30 seconds and then sat out, and the next game he scored 30 causing his PPG to be completely skewed would you find that first game a valuable data point to include when trying to predict his future PPG? That's all that's happening here.

Sigh, you misread what I meant again- it's weird to have a cutoff regardless of where you put it (hence: "it's weird to have a cutoff, period").
And again the only thing that was remotely proven about that data is that as a whole it has some predictive power- and that whole includes so called "outlier" games, which again is a subjective mark.
And you at no point brought anything that makes me think that point differential minus so-called "outliers" has any predictive power- in fact you can argue that it defeats the point of +/- for reasons already described here by other posters.

 

[mac]

Sigh, it's not a cut off period. If I implied that it was that isn't what I am aiming for. The 23 or 24 (remove dallas and houston) "cut off" is simply a way to deal with outliers which can be greatly influence the numbers before a full season can even them out a bit. Surely you see why you would need to take into account other factors? If the first game of the season Boogie scored 2 point in the first 30 seconds and then sat out, and the next game he scored 30 causing his PPG to be completely skewed would you find that first game a valuable data point to include when trying to predict his future PPG? That's all that's happening here.

I think the issue is that a stat like point differential, which is cumulative and has a direction (vs say ppg) is that you shouldn't be removing outliers. Also, where do you draw the line for an outlier? Other things skew it as well such as getting blown out against the Spurs and then making a comeback with Pop leaving in his benchwarmers for the last 5 minutes. There's no reasonable way to say x should count but y shouldn't, so it only makes sense to look at it over all games, regardless of the state of the team, especially so for a team like ours where we are clearly dependent on Cousins. I said from early in the season, all it takes is one Cousins sickness or injury and we're done, we won't even stand a chance like NO did when AD went out. So what's the point of taking a stat and saying if everything goes perfectly (Which it wont) we'll have a shot at the playoffs?

 

[Bricklayer]

It's weird to have a cutoff period.
If you are basing it on data than the thing to look at is the current data.

If you want to make an alternative point on the predictive power of point differential of games you think are worthy- go ahead and make that point, but the original post was mainly about showing that point differential has some predictive power based on past precedent- and the numbers used in the precedent included all the games.

And again, if your point is so sensitive it can get completely skewed by one game it's probably not a good source to rely on.

Jesus.

I gave you guys FIVE YEARS worth of data to show just how good a source Pt. Diff. it is to rely upon.

And again the very clear point would be that a team that carries a -0.8 (or thereabouts) +/- all year will be hovering around .500 by the end. It doesn't mean that any team is given the right to have a -0.8, but it does mean that's where teams playing at the level we have played at end up. It shows the quality of our play through the first month+. And pending of course Rudy's health, come Friday it's still going to be a team that has been playing at a -0.8 taking the court. We might as well have had our D-League team play the Rockets for all that game told us about anything so long as Boogie is healthy.

 

[Amit149]

Jesus.

I gave you guys FIVE YEARS worth of data to show just how good a source Pt. Diff. it is to rely upon.

And again the very clear point would be that a team that carries a -0.8 (or thereabouts) +/- all year will be hovering around .500 by the end. It doesn't mean that any team is given the right to have a -0.8, but it does mean that's where teams playing at the level we have played at end up. It shows the quality of our play through the first month+. And pending of course Rudy's health, come Friday it's still going to be a team that has been playing at a -0.8 taking the court. We might as well have had our D-League team play the Rockets for all that game told us about anything so long as Boogie is healthy.

That's the point- it wasn't all year, it was only -0.8 on the night you chose to post it, it isn't now and it wasn't so one game before you made the post so determining anything based on it is far from an exact science.
As a whole while it is somewhat valuable it's not a perfect metric (just look at Memphis in your tables for example) and you failed to show that the sample is good enough to count on after only about 20 games or that it is a better predictor when subtracting so-called "outlier" games- which is that current position you are pushing.

Bringing in subjective thought on which games should count and to what extent and deciding when to post it combined with a small sample turnes it from a stat based argument to your own subjective opinion.

 

[kupman]

Jesus.

I gave you guys FIVE YEARS worth of data to show just how good a source Pt. Diff. it is to rely upon.

And again the very clear point would be that a team that carries a -0.8 (or thereabouts) +/- all year will be hovering around .500 by the end. It doesn't mean that any team is given the right to have a -0.8, but it does mean that's where teams playing at the level we have played at end up. It shows the quality of our play through the first month+. And pending of course Rudy's health, come Friday it's still going to be a team that has been playing at a -0.8 taking the court. We might as well have had our D-League team play the Rockets for all that game told us about anything so long as Boogie is healthy.

So are you predicting 41 wins this year? I hope you are right. I was guessing somewhere close to 32-34.

 

[mac]

So are you predicting 41 wins this year? I hope you are right. I was guessing somewhere close to 32-34.

He's predicting 41 wins if nobody in the regular rotation misses any games

 

[Bricklayer]

That's the point- it wasn't all year, it was only -0.8 on the night you chose to post it, it isn't now and it wasn't so one game before you made the post so determining anything based on it is far from an exact science.
As a whole while it is somewhat valuable it's not a perfect metric (just look at Memphis in your tables for example) and you failed to show that the sample is good enough to count on after only about 20 games or that it is a better predictor when subtracting so-called "outlier" games- which is that current position you are pushing.

Bringing in subjective thought on which games should count and to what extent and deciding when to post it combined with a small sample turnes it from a stat based argument to your own subjective opinion.

You do realize we are nearly 1/3 of the way through the season right? (27 games x 3 = 81). If you can't start looking ahead with stats 1/3 of the way through something, you pretty much might as well not bother. We'd be 3/4 of the way through a college season. Its a healthy sample size.

And my own subjective opinion here = 100% truth. Every single person on this board knew what was going to happen last night, and why. Anybody trying to deny that is just being argumentative. Anybody on this board who advanced the argument "oh, we lost by 30+ last night, hence we'll lose by 30+ vs. Memphis" would be deemed, appropriately, a blithering idiot. So long as Cousins plays of course. Its no different, in fact even more extreme, than those games when Pop decided to be clever and rest his top guys against a rival, who promptly smashes his remaining team. Anybody drawing any lessons from those smashings is being an idiot. The whole point Pop does it is to eliminate any ability for his opponent to learn any lessons or draw any confidence from that game. And yeah, that probably downward skews the Spurs' +/- totals as well. If his team is +7.0 on the year in the 77 game she tried to win, but only +5.9 on the year if you mix in the 5 games he threw, you better believe when the playoffs roll around that you are going to be facing a +7.0 team.

Now the appropriate way to try to argue this is that we don't know what injuries the previous teams carrying -0.8 type season ratings had to endure in order to achieve those numbers. And we don't, although we could figure them out. But its barely relevant. Whether they played all year at full strength, or played the full season 4 on 5, in the end we've started this season playing at their level, whatever it was. If we keep it up, our end result will be similar. You can say we won't keep it up. I can say not only will we, we'll do even better. Nobody can prove anything except the way we have already played.

 

[KingMilz]

It feels like a lot of these stat threads are just there to try avoid/mirage the bigger issues the Kings have and this has been the case for years with these types of threads (e.g per 36 numbers/PER stats/when player X starts we are X wins X losses) they have all ended in the same result with the Kings being a sub 500. team and not bad enough to get top 2-3 pick and a treadmill mediocre team.

At some point you have to face reality and just like in nature if you don't well you basically die nature/reality don't care for stats it's all about results.

The bigger concerns for this team should be the complete lack of development of WCS or any other young player while we play guys who won't ever be in a Kings uniform again who are currently not producing and are well past there primes. Lack of athletic ability in general/low IQ which are two major reasons why we nearly lose every close game point differential is not going to help you with the actual issues.

 

[kingsboi]

It feels like a lot of these stat threads are just there to try avoid/mirage the bigger issues the Kings have and this has been the case for years with these types of threads (e.g per 36 numbers/PER stats/when player X starts we are X wins X losses) they have all ended in the same result with the Kings being a sub 500. team and not bad enough to get top 2-3 pick and a treadmill mediocre team.

At some point you have to face reality and just like in nature if you don't well you basically die nature/reality don't care for stats it's all about results.

The bigger concerns for this team should be the complete lack of development of WCS or any other young player while we play guys who won't ever be in a Kings uniform again who are currently not producing and are well past there primes. Lack of athletic ability in general/low IQ which are two major reasons why we nearly lose every close game point differential is not going to help you with the actual issues.

and when this happens yet again at the end of the season, you can bring this up again, I'll most likely join you in your endeavors.

 

[funkykingston]

It's pretty simple.

Through 24 games point historical data on point differential would indicate that the Kings were playing like a 40-42 win team or so.

They rested Cousins in the 25th game and they got blown out, which affected the teams point differential to a not unsubstantial degree.

We can argue that when Cousins plays the Kings are that team with a -0.8 point differential with a shot to make up ground and be .500 with a shot at the 8th seed.

Or we can argue that when Cousins is out the Kings are a team that loses to bad teams and gets blown out by good ones.

Both positions are born out by the statistics.

But the team being a .500 level team if Cousins always plays only matters if Cousins always plays.

That's a tough line to bet on.

 

[CelticsFan]

It's pretty simple.

Through 24 games point historical data on point differential would indicate that the Kings were playing like a 40-42 win team or so.

They rested Cousins in the 25th game and they got blown out, which affected the teams point differential to a not unsubstantial degree.

We can argue that when Cousins plays the Kings are that team with a -0.8 point differential with a shot to make up ground and be .500 with a shot at the 8th seed.

Or we can argue that when Cousins is out the Kings are a team that loses to bad teams and gets blown out by good ones.

Both positions are born out by the statistics.

But the team being a .500 level team if Cousins always plays only matters if Cousins always plays.

That's a tough line to bet on.

But they aren't a .500 level team when he plays

 

[funkykingston]

But they aren't a .500 level team when he plays

But that was the purpose of Brick's statistical analysis and the entire point of this thread. Point differential showed the Kings to be on par with teams that have gone .500 or so and earned the 8th seed.

The entire premise was that the Kings were playing like a .500 team but were being hurt by a tough early schedule and some tough, close losses.

 

[CelticsFan]

Im pretty sure we are talking 8th seed not .500. Check the stats he provided on the original thread. Maybe I'm reading it wrong

 

[funkykingston]

Im pretty sure we are talking 8th seed not .500. Check the stats he provided on the original thread. Maybe I'm reading it wrong

Sure, but that's a semantics argument. A team hasn't made the playoffs in the West with a sub .500 record in 20 years.

And at the very least the Kings would almost certainly have to be a .500 team the rest of the way to even have a shot at that slot, even if Portland occupies that slot with a sub .500 record now.

 

[Kingston Jamaica]

I don't feel like doing the research but it sure feels like for a team that has generally been so bad that the Sacramento Kings haven't had a lot of really high picks. Say top 5 or better.

I remember Pervis Ellison at #1

Billy Owens at #3 - traded for Richmond

Tyreke at #4 and Boogie at #5

Are there top 5 picks that I'm missing?

EDIT: Forgot about Thomas Robinson. I think that's all.

This made me do some thinking. While Boogie is certainly the most successful player from all these, some of the SAC 2nd round picks are shining today. Isaiah Thomas is a solid starter for the Celtics and Hassan Whiteside one of the Miami cornerstone pieces in rebuilding. Vlade has gotten a lot of negative comments of his draft performance last summer. However, I went back to check how the other draft picks (up to 22nd pick) have performed and I would say that "nothing to write home about" (mildly speaking). Just a few have managed to rise over PER of 10 (!) and even that with a meager margin. I haven't seen great game changers to come around since the Kyrie Irving and Anthony Davis days (not counting the Durant, Westbrook and Harden etc. and before that picks). Wiggins and Towns are even playing in the same team ( a team full of top picks) and have one of the most respected coaches in the NBA, but are way behind the Kings in standings and so are the Pelicans for that matter (the Cavs were not going anywhere either before LBJ came back). The Steph Currys, Klay Thompsons, Kawhi Leonards etc. were picked later in the draft. So I'm not sure how much a high pick would change the view. I believe it is all about the team culture. SA is a great example of that.