Who cost the Kings ping pong balls?

#31
I'm not going to quote ALL your posts, but I do have a question. DID YOU WATCH THAT GAME? The Kings most likely would have won, as others have stated, with a lineup of Grant, Jerry, Vlade, Peja and Slamson. It was Fan Appreciataion Night and the last home game of the season. The Kings were NOT going to tank under those circumstances, especially considering how many fans were still disappointed about not being able to get into 3 of the last home games. (And obviously, we're not going to discuss that part further). Like it or not, tanking against Houston was not on the table for a myriad of reasons and to try and say it should have been is an argument without a basis in fact.
I think most kings fans in attendance would not had revolted with a Kings tank in that last game.

And I seem to remember that even the commentators were commenting on how quite the fans were at that game. Could it had been because they were aware of the ramification of a win that night?

Again, Houston was not trying to lose, they were indifferent to the outcome.

The Kings could had played the starters the first quarter and sat them the rest of the game, like what Cleveland did to ensure their Nets pick wound up higher than the Knicks. I still think that if we had JJ, Sampson, Cooley, Hayes, Bruno in there the bulk of the game we lose.

I think most fans in attendance would had been fine going home knowing we were guaranteed the #6 slot with a Lin.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#33
I think most kings fans in attendance would not had revolted with a Kings tank in that last game.

And I seem to remember that even the commentators were commenting on how quite the fans were at that game. Could it had been because they were aware of the ramification of a win that night?

Again, Houston was not trying to lose, they were indifferent to the outcome.

The Kings could had played the starters the first quarter and sat them the rest of the game, like what Cleveland did to ensure their Nets pick wound up higher than the Knicks.

I think most fans in attendance would had been fine going home knowing we were guaranteed the #6 slot with a Lin.
Seriously? Then we have nothing more to talk about because I firmly believe you are utterly and completely WRONG. Having been to a goodly number of Kings games in my life, I cannot think of even ONE time when fans in attendance would have been happy with a loss, draft status be damned.

The commentators to my knowledge did not talk about the fans being quiet. I know I mentioned it in the game thread, but should have remembered that blowouts lead to more quiet fans. Plus, people in attendance told me later I was mistaken, that it wasn't as quiet as it seemed.

You're entitled to your opinion, and I respect your right to it, but I'm not going to continue to argue it with you. Have a nice day.
 
#34
I have been a STH in the past and known many over the years (of many teams), and I have found that the majority of people attending games are not as rabid as the fans you find on forums. Most go to games to be entertained and often have a basic knowledge of the game in general (star players and the home team). The idea of tanking probably hasn't entered into their heads much less liking the idea of losing.
 
#36
That's not in dispute, but it's still not the same question as whether or not "linning" the game was the best outcome for the future of the franchise.
I’m not sure 6 versus 7 matters but no matter how you look at things statistically it’s clear not Linning is a good path to insure you have a losing franchise.

We already looked at likelihood of drafting an all-star and it falls exponentially between top 5 and 6-10. Just for grins I also looked at the correlation between frequency of times drafting in the 6,7 or 8 spot and teams record over 30 years. The correlation is almost -70%. Meaning the more time you draft in those spots the more likely you will have a losing record. The same isn’t true for spots 1, 2 and 3.

BTW the Kings far away lead the league in drafting at spots 6, 7, 8. This time (absent some luck) will be their 11th time in 30 years. Vlade would have been a perfect 4 for 4 except he got lucky and Philly tanked for him.
 
#37
Seriously? Then we have nothing more to talk about because I firmly believe you are utterly and completely WRONG. Having been to a goodly number of Kings games in my life, I cannot think of even ONE time when fans in attendance would have been happy with a loss, draft status be damned.

The commentators to my knowledge did not talk about the fans being quiet. I know I mentioned it in the game thread, but should have remembered that blowouts lead to more quiet fans. Plus, people in attendance told me later I was mistaken, that it wasn't as quiet as it seemed.

You're entitled to your opinion, and I respect your right to it, but I'm not going to continue to argue it with you. Have a nice day.
I agree with you and that fact is not the same in other cities. That’s why Kings fans have the team they deserve.
 
#38
I have been a STH in the past and known many over the years (of many teams), and I have found that the majority of people attending games are not as rabid as the fans you find on forums. Most go to games to be entertained and often have a basic knowledge of the game in general (star players and the home team). The idea of tanking probably hasn't entered into their heads much less liking the idea of losing.
Right Kings fans are much less sophisticated and demanding then fans on the east coast.
 
#39
Right Kings fans are much less sophisticated and demanding then fans on the east coast.
It's not about sophistication or east coast vs west coast (I've lived on both). The truth is that most fans know about their team and not much else other than stars. I would argue that King's fans tend to be more knowledgeable than most, but that could be bias on my part.

It takes a lot of time and effort to not only follow your team, but the whole league. Especially if you closely follow more than one sport. Most people just don't have that kind of time, or don't care enough to put forth the effort. I won't even get into how many NBA fans I have talked to that don't seem to understand basic offense or defense (much less all the variations of each).
 
#40
Lordy. The mods closed the “this season set us back long term” thread

The Kings did something that wasn’t smart and had long term harm.

As the the Kings actively set themselves on fire, it was verboten to say do you smell gas in about 40 game threads. Straight up ban

Instead, folks with abysmal track records over a decade, poor objectivity and consistently say it will be fine for Tunces to drive recast the debate as “do you like Lins”. That’s the spot and that’s how the issue was dumbed down

There are countless threads that are unlikely to occur and not everyone will read, but long term planning and probabilities gave some folks a sad, so like a decade ago heavy handed moderation was employed to silence negative opinions

Now, 24 hours after the lottery odds are set they also lock the thread they created for the conversation of “uggh, this was dumb and cost us for a long while”. Meanwhile if you want to opine that Giles has magic knees you can do that in 57 threads. Moderate it how you want but the point isn’t going away and it looks like a lot of the same from moderation that is often about as smart and objective as the Kings
 
#42
Gee, thanks! I think we'll do that.

He has a point. A well known mod called a different thread, a place where people could join to "moan, whine and cry", despite the fact that valid points were being made.

If the same names were called to people who consistently don't understand how the NBA works, and who, every single year, take the Kings PR hook, line and sinker, then bans and infractions would be handed out.

Capt you are the fairest mod here, but there is a real problem on the forum at the moment. There's massive hypocrisy among some of the mods (a minority, to be fair).

I wouldn't mind, but what's most frustrating is that one side is grounded in reasoning and evidence, and the other side is grounded in putting fingers in ears and shouting that everything is better than it ever was.

I would appreciate if I'm not told that nobody is forcing me to post here. That is simply glossing over the problem and refusing to deal with the actual issue here. I've been part of this form for a long time.
 
#43
He has a point. A well known mod called a different thread, a place where people could join to "moan, whine and cry", despite the fact that valid points were being made.

If the same names were called to people who consistently don't understand how the NBA works, and who, every single year, take the Kings PR hook, line and sinker, then bans and infractions would be handed out.

Capt you are the fairest mod here, but there is a real problem on the forum at the moment. There's massive hypocrisy among some of the mods (a minority, to be fair).

I wouldn't mind, but what's most frustrating is that one side is grounded in reasoning and evidence, and the other side is grounded in putting fingers in ears and shouting that everything is better than it ever was.

I would appreciate if I'm not told that nobody is forcing me to post here. That is simply glossing over the problem and refusing to deal with the actual issue here. I've been part of this form for a long time.
The bolded is the problem that tank commanders have in these discussions. Both sides of this discussion are grounded in reason and logic. Tank commanders are not smarter than everbody else—they simply prefer one means of team-building over another.

I’ve referenced him before, but Daryl Morey has never tanked. He doesn’t believe in it. He doesn’t think his market would support it, nor that it’s ultimately a likey path to success. And Morey literally invented the Sloan conference and the foundational analytics tank commanders use to justify tanking. Hinkie is a smart guy, but he’s not smarter than Morey. Are tank commanders more reasonable and logical than Morey?
 
#44
The bolded is the problem that tank commanders have in these discussions. Both sides of this discussion are grounded in reason and logic. Tank commanders are not smarter than everbody else—they simply prefer one means of team-building over another.

I’ve referenced him before, but Daryl Morey has never tanked. He doesn’t believe in it. He doesn’t think his market would support it, nor that it’s ultimately a likey path to success. And Morey literally invented the Sloan conference and the foundational analytics tank commanders use to justify tanking. Hinkie is a smart guy, but he’s not smarter than Morey. Are tank commanders more reasonable and logical than Morey?
He may say he doesn’t believe in it, but the Rockets are one of the teams who consistently avoid the 6,7 and 8 draft slots. They have had 4 top 3 picks over the same period the Kings have had 1. This quadruple the number of top 3 picks has occurred despite having a significantly better winning percentage.

He also has had only 1 pick at 6, 7, 8 over the same time period where the Kings have had 11 picks in that position.
 
#45
He has a point. A well known mod called a different thread, a place where people could join to "moan, whine and cry", despite the fact that valid points were being made.

If the same names were called to people who consistently don't understand how the NBA works, and who, every single year, take the Kings PR hook, line and sinker, then bans and infractions would be handed out.

Capt you are the fairest mod here, but there is a real problem on the forum at the moment. There's massive hypocrisy among some of the mods (a minority, to be fair).

I wouldn't mind, but what's most frustrating is that one side is grounded in reasoning and evidence, and the other side is grounded in putting fingers in ears and shouting that everything is better than it ever was.

I would appreciate if I'm not told that nobody is forcing me to post here. That is simply glossing over the problem and refusing to deal with the actual issue here. I've been part of this form for a long time.
The moderation here is heavily biased but as you say people are free to post at RealGm as that is the only alternative left. Every other board has failed as people have quit being Kings fans. Perhaps it’s the rainbows attitude that keeps this board successful because looking at the reality causes most people to just stop being fans.
 
#46
The bolded is the problem that tank commanders have in these discussions. Both sides of this discussion are grounded in reason and logic. Tank commanders are not smarter than everbody else—they simply prefer one means of team-building over another.

I’ve referenced him before, but Daryl Morey has never tanked. He doesn’t believe in it. He doesn’t think his market would support it, nor that it’s ultimately a likey path to success. And Morey literally invented the Sloan conference and the foundational analytics tank commanders use to justify tanking. Hinkie is a smart guy, but he’s not smarter than Morey. Are tank commanders more reasonable and logical than Morey?
The anti-tank crowd I'm referencing here don't put forward any sort of reasoning that Morey would agree with. Nor was my point that the tanking crowd is smarter than everybody else.

Morey believes in accumulating superstars/young talent. We don't have the means to do that unless it's through the draft. It's that simple.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#47
I’m not sure 6 versus 7 matters but no matter how you look at things statistically it’s clear not Linning is a good path to insure you have a losing franchise.

We already looked at likelihood of drafting an all-star and it falls exponentially between top 5 and 6-10. Just for grins I also looked at the correlation between frequency of times drafting in the 6,7 or 8 spot and teams record over 30 years. The correlation is almost -70%. Meaning the more time you draft in those spots the more likely you will have a losing record. The same isn’t true for spots 1, 2 and 3.

BTW the Kings far away lead the league in drafting at spots 6, 7, 8. This time (absent some luck) will be their 11th time in 30 years. Vlade would have been a perfect 4 for 4 except he got lucky and Philly tanked for him.
You (and apparently @ockingsfan) and I are arguing two different things. I am not engaging in a debate of whether the Number Six pick is better than the Number Seven pick or not. In the first place, that is a debate that does not interest me. In the second place, "better" connotes a value judgment that I am not willing to assess, but I will stipulate that there will definitely be one more player available at the sixth pick than there will be at the seventh pick.

The part of the thesis that I am challenging is the claim that losing the game would have been the "obvious best outcome for the future of the organization." I will stipulate that losing the game would have ensured the Kings of the sixth pick, but that's as far as I'm willing to declare absolutely. I will not stipulate that ensuring the sixth pick was the "obvious best outcome for the future of the organization." Those two things are not necessarily the same thing.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#48
... I wouldn't mind, but what's most frustrating is that one side is grounded in reasoning and evidence, and the other side is grounded in putting fingers in ears and shouting that everything is better than it ever was...
It would be easier to take accusations of unfair treatment seriously if you could articulate your grievances without deliberately mischaracterizing the other side. There's literally nobody saying that everything is better than it ever was: is that really what you take away from seeing people trying to find the silver lining in a ****ty situation?
 

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
#50
I wouldn't mind, but what's most frustrating is that one side is grounded in reasoning and evidence, and the other side is grounded in putting fingers in ears and shouting that everything is better than it ever was.
That's how it looks from one side of the aisle. The other side of the aisle sees it differently, and it might go something like this:

"What's most frustrating is that one side is actually concerned with properly developing players and establishing a culture of winning which is ultimately what puts butts in seats, and the other side simply wants to keep chasing after a pie-in-the-sky player that may end up being a bust anyway particularly if thrust into a locker room with a culture of losing."

I don't imagine you would much agree with that statement - no more than they would agree with your characterization, particularly your description of the other side as shouting that everything is better than ever, which seems to me a strange characterization of a side which is at least trying to be optimistic.

And for balance, let me give you my view from somewhere in the middle:

"What's most frustrating is that both sides have good arguments, but the side that most likely has the better argument all things considered has fallen into relentless, often toxic negativity rather than agreeing to disagree and somehow not realizing that this insistence on negativity causes the other side to stick their fingers in their ears and has actually forced them to carve out spaces on the board where they can do strange things like enjoy the team winning without being told that their enjoyment is wrong."

The ability of these two sides to live together seems to be very close to nil right now, but I really don't think it has to be that way. And while the pro-tank crowd might not like to hear it, it seems to me that the onus is on them to tone down the rhetoric if they want reconciliation. It's possible to be friends with someone who shares the same goals as you (the Kings becoming a winning franchise) but disagrees with you on the best way to do it without persistently turning it into an argument, and an unfriendly one at that. My take, for what it is worth, is that it is the pro-tank side that is most responsible for persistently turning it into an argument.

And the bottom line is that from here on out, for a full eighteen months we need to play the draft hand we've been dealt. Maybe we did a bad job at shuffling and cutting, maybe it's partially our own fault what draft hand we have, but the bottom line is that we are not going to play a single game for the next eighteen months where losing the game could possibly mean anything good for the franchise. For eighteen months, there is literally NO TANKING. TANKING IS OVER. And what this means, if anybody has read this far, is that there is really no good reason to turn anything into an argument about tanking for eighteen months. What's done is done, and for the next eighteen months what's to be done is drafting, signing free agents, making trades, developing players, and hoping that the Kings win every game possible. There is no tanking. We don't need to argue about tanking. And we've got eighteen months to try to get along. Let's make the best of it.
 
#51
You (and apparently @ockingsfan) and I are arguing two different things. I am not engaging in a debate of whether the Number Six pick is better than the Number Seven pick or not. In the first place, that is a debate that does not interest me. In the second place, "better" connotes a value judgment that I am not willing to assess, but I will stipulate that there will definitely be one more player available at the sixth pick than there will be at the seventh pick.

The part of the thesis that I am challenging is the claim that losing the game would have been the "obvious best outcome for the future of the organization." I will stipulate that losing the game would have ensured the Kings of the sixth pick, but that's as far as I'm willing to declare absolutely. I will not stipulate that ensuring the sixth pick was the "obvious best outcome for the future of the organization." Those two things are not necessarily the same thing.
Nor am I arguing 6 versus 7. Neither is a very advantageous position. One game doesn’t matter it’s more the general philosophy that permeated the last couple months. If you are bad enough to be in the 6, 7 or 8 spot good teams work to get in the top 3. Bad teams continue to pick in the 6, 7, 8 range.

Why do you think Ainge capped the Lakers pick at top 5? If he didn’t get top 5 with the Lakers he would rather have another shot at top 5 instead of picking 6, 7 or 8.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#52
First, I don't believe Divac is a nit-wit. He seems like a reasonably smart individual, able to comprehend the consequences of his action. I don't think that he's devoid of knowledge about the higher probability of getting a better player in the draft (all other things being equal) than lower in the draft. Trying out different sets and getting more looks at different players? Please. I've got some tropical swamp land to sell in Nome, Alaska, if you think that is ALL that Divac had in mind.

What I also believe is that Divac vacillated when it concerned a season long strategy dealing with the axiom of "the higher draft position, the higher the probability of available talent." Divac wrestled with the question, "To tank or not to tank?" And that waffling is why he's sitting in 7th position.
 
#53
That's how it looks from one side of the aisle. The other side of the aisle sees it differently, and it might go something like this:

"What's most frustrating is that one side is actually concerned with properly developing players and establishing a culture of winning which is ultimately what puts butts in seats, and the other side simply wants to keep chasing after a pie-in-the-sky player that may end up being a bust anyway particularly if thrust into a locker room with a culture of losing."

I don't imagine you would much agree with that statement - no more than they would agree with your characterization, particularly your description of the other side as shouting that everything is better than ever, which seems to me a strange characterization of a side which is at least trying to be optimistic.

And for balance, let me give you my view from somewhere in the middle:

"What's most frustrating is that both sides have good arguments, but the side that most likely has the better argument all things considered has fallen into relentless, often toxic negativity rather than agreeing to disagree and somehow not realizing that this insistence on negativity causes the other side to stick their fingers in their ears and has actually forced them to carve out spaces on the board where they can do strange things like enjoy the team winning without being told that their enjoyment is wrong."

The ability of these two sides to live together seems to be very close to nil right now, but I really don't think it has to be that way. And while the pro-tank crowd might not like to hear it, it seems to me that the onus is on them to tone down the rhetoric if they want reconciliation. It's possible to be friends with someone who shares the same goals as you (the Kings becoming a winning franchise) but disagrees with you on the best way to do it without persistently turning it into an argument, and an unfriendly one at that. My take, for what it is worth, is that it is the pro-tank side that is most responsible for persistently turning it into an argument.

And the bottom line is that from here on out, for a full eighteen months we need to play the draft hand we've been dealt. Maybe we did a bad job at shuffling and cutting, maybe it's partially our own fault what draft hand we have, but the bottom line is that we are not going to play a single game for the next eighteen months where losing the game could possibly mean anything good for the franchise. For eighteen months, there is literally NO TANKING. TANKING IS OVER. And what this means, if anybody has read this far, is that there is really no good reason to turn anything into an argument about tanking for eighteen months. What's done is done, and for the next eighteen months what's to be done is drafting, signing free agents, making trades, developing players, and hoping that the Kings win every game possible. There is no tanking. We don't need to argue about tanking. And we've got eighteen months to try to get along. Let's make the best of it.
There might be a different perspective here.

I would agree on the constant negativity and to some extent I’m guilty as charged. However, all organizations are responsive to the views of their customers. I think Vivek is particularly so. A significant portion of the fan base is clearly anti-tank and those opinions play into organizational philosophy. The Kings organization is largely echoing the opinion of their customers. So changing the general consensus does matter.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#54
Nor am I arguing 6 versus 7. Neither is a very advantageous position. One game doesn’t matter it’s more the general philosophy that permeated the last couple months. If you are bad enough to be in the 6, 7 or 8 spot good teams work to get in the top 3. Bad teams continue to pick in the 6, 7, 8 range.

Why do you think Ainge capped the Lakers pick at top 5? If he didn’t get top 5 with the Lakers he would rather have another shot at top 5 instead of picking 6, 7 or 8.
I can honestly say that I've never given the matter any thought.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#55
There might be a different perspective here.

I would agree on the constant negativity and to some extent I’m guilty as charged. However, all organizations are responsive to the views of their customers. I think Vivek is particularly so. A significant portion of the fan base is clearly anti-tank and those opinions play into organizational philosophy.
Do they, though? See, I don't believe that's true. I think that believing that to be true requires one to believe that the Kings solicited fans on what they wanted, before they decided to do, whatever the hell it is they're doing. And I don't believe that to be the case, any more than I believe that Hinkie solicited Seventy-Sixers fans before he decided to implement his Process. I think that Divac decided to put a plan into action, and some people are on board with it, and some people aren't.

Only time will tell whether it worked but, in the short term, a big shortcoming in Divac's strategy is that he didn't do a good enough job of selling it. The underappreciated aspect of the Process was the work that Hinkie put into getting fans to buy in; I don't think that Divac has attempted to do anything remotely like that.
 

dude12

Hall of Famer
#56
The moderation here is heavily biased but as you say people are free to post at RealGm as that is the only alternative left. Every other board has failed as people have quit being Kings fans. Perhaps it’s the rainbows attitude that keeps this board successful because looking at the reality causes most people to just stop being fans.
I've been reading your posts over many of the threads and you have this attitude that people who believe that the Kings are on the correct path (got the correct coach, have pieces in place, rebuilding the correct way, showing patience, etc......all feasible) you are saying that these Kings fans have the team they deserve? And that moderation on this board is heavy handed and biased? And that fans who think good things are happening, but know that we are still not there yet by a long ways....you are saying they have a rainbow attitude?

Lmao....that comment about this is the team that Kings fans deserve.....seems a bit much.
 
#57
Do they, though? See, I don't believe that's true. I think that believing that to be true requires one to believe that the Kings solicited fans on what they wanted, before they decided to do, whatever the hell it is they're doing. And I don't believe that to be the case, any more than I believe that Hinkie solicited Seventy-Sixers fans before he decided to implement his Process. I think that Divac decided to put a plan into action, and some people are on board with it, and some people aren't.

Only time will tell whether it worked but, in the short term, a big shortcoming in Divac's strategy is that he didn't do a good enough job of selling it. The underappreciated aspect of the Process was the work that Hinkie put into getting fans to buy in; I don't think that Divac has attempted to do anything remotely like that.
Are you clear what the Kings strategy for adding talent is? Hinkie, Memphis and Phoenix had a clear strategy to expand talent via the draft. Others are clear they are pursuing free agents. It’s hard to sell when it’s not clear your org is all in.

I think Vlade wanted to go via the draft but was blocked by Vivek from going all in and playing guys like Coboclo or sitting Bogdan. The result is an unclear strategy.
 
#58
First, I don't believe Divac is a nit-wit. He seems like a reasonably smart individual, able to comprehend the consequences of his action. I don't think that he's devoid of knowledge about the higher probability of getting a better player in the draft (all other things being equal) than lower in the draft. Trying out different sets and getting more looks at different players? Please. I've got some tropical swamp land to sell in Nome, Alaska, if you think that is ALL that Divac had in mind.

What I also believe is that Divac vacillated when it concerned a season long strategy dealing with the axiom of "the higher draft position, the higher the probability of available talent." Divac wrestled with the question, "To tank or not to tank?" And that waffling is why he's sitting in 7th position.
The question is why did he waffle? Was it personal indecision or was he facing pressure to play our best young players the large anti tank crowd wanted to see play.

Bogie had a strained hamstring. It would have been easy to shut him down for the season and play Coboclo,
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#59
Are you clear what the Kings strategy for adding talent is? Hinkie, Memphis and Phoenix had a clear strategy to expand talent via the draft. Others are clear they are pursuing free agents. It’s hard to sell when it’s not clear your org is all in.

I think Vlade wanted to go via the draft but was blocked by Vivek from going all in and playing guys like Coboclo or sitting Bogdan. The result is an unclear strategy.
We're kind of saying the same thing here: we agree that Divac didn't do as good a job of communicating his strategy to the consumers as Hinkie did, and thereby wasn't as effective as energizing the fanbase about said strategy. The difference to me is that you seem to be saying that you think that Divac developed his strategy based on what he thought consumers wanted, and then hedged. Whereas I think that Divac made a plan in advance, and has stuck to it, but simply didn't effectively communicate to his consumers what the plan was, which has led to all the speculation and hand-wringing.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#60
The question is why did he waffle? Was it personal indecision or was he facing pressure to play our best young players the large anti tank crowd wanted to see play.

Bogie had a strained hamstring. It would have been easy to shut him down for the season and play Coboclo,
It was NEVER said that he had a strained hamstring. It was said he had a bit of soreness IIRC and they did not want to take a chance THAT GAME. Bogs himself said he was fine, he didn't see why he wouldn't play the next game, etc. Just setting the record straight in that regard...