Who cost the Kings ping pong balls?

[LPKingsFan]

I start this thread with a simple request -- there are plenty of places to litigate what the Kings should and should not have done. Argue that elsewhere. What I am interested in this thread is what did happen, and how. The question -- who cost the Kings ping pong balls?

My first way to approach this was to look at net rating in games Kings won since the all-star break. There may be other ways to look at the question, but that's what occurred to me first. Here's what it boils down to:



My initial reaction -- Koufos and Temple were the most valuable vets in Kings wins by far. But Buddy's emergence down the stretch can't be discounted. Z-Bo, on the other hand, doesn't appear to have played a hand in costing the Kings any "lins." What do you all think? Any other ways to look at this question?

 

[VF21]

One thread. Three posts. Three totally different topics.

I love this board.

 

[LPKingsFan]

One thread. Three posts. Three totally different topics.

I love this board.

I tried!

 

[SacTownKid]

I think the answer to the initial post is the other tank teams. That was some mega tanking going on by some of those teams. Shameless.

 

[VF21]

I tried!

It's your lucky day. I can fix it. Happy Friday the 13th!

 

[pdxKingsFan]

It's your lucky day. I can fix it. Happy Friday the 13th!

I don't mind that you moved my post, but it was meant to be in the context of whether or not the people costing the team lotto balls are part of the team's future or the past. I think if Vince, Z-Bo and Hill were winning a bunch of games for us it would be serious cause for alarm in the "this team is building something" camp. I'm not sure about the two "winners" in question however.

Perhaps the biggest cause for alarm is Willie's spot? But Fox and Bogs being in the bottom third also doesn't really pass the "stats tell me one thing but my instinct tells me another", especially because they hit a few winning/OT delivering buckets in the final ~15 games or so.

 

[VF21]

I don't mind that you moved my post, but it was meant to be in the context of whether or not the people costing the team lotto balls are part of the team's future or the past. I think if Vince, Z-Bo and Hill were winning a bunch of games for us it would be serious cause for alarm in the "this team is building something" camp. I'm not sure about the two "winners" in question however.

Perhaps the biggest cause for alarm is Willie's spot? But Fox and Bogs being in the bottom third also doesn't really pass the "stats tell me one thing but my instinct tells me another", especially because they hit a few winning/OT delivering buckets in the final ~15 games or so.

Okay, now my head hurts. This looks like a 4th topic. You want me to merge yours back in?

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Okay, now my head hurts. This looks like a 4th topic. You want me to merge yours back in?

I still feel like I'm mostly talking about who is winning games for us (assuming I understand the topic right) - and then what we do with that knowledge moving forward. Is it a new topic or not? I don't really know, but I didn't intend for it to be. You can delete this post though

 

[kingsboi]

Fox cost the Kings at least 4 or 5 games, Bogs with 2 and then throw in Z-Bo for a few too

 

[Iced Espresso]

With no stat check and working from the eye test/memory.

Randolph won us some games early on in the year. He had an impressive run for over a month.

 

[Section 101]

Posting just the wins is useless. You need to compare wins vs losses.

Since your focused on the team losing, you would want to see who achieved that goal of poor ratings.

 

[ockingsfan]

Who cost the Kings the ping pong balls?

The answer is simple: Coach Joeger!

He refused to "rest" the good "established" young players (i.e. Buddy, Fox, Bogdan, WCS) when they needed to lose the most, that last Houston game.

Players are not going to throw a game, but if you put an inept offensive group of players in to make sure you get the Lin, then you would secure the Lin when it matters most, coach didn't do that.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Who cost the Kings the ping pong balls?

The answer is simple: Coach Joeger!

He refused to "rest" the good "established" young players (i.e. Buddy, Fox, Bogdan, WCS) when they needed to lose the most, that last Houston game.

Players are not going to throw a game, but if you put an inept offensive group of players in to make sure you get the Lin, then you would secure the Lin when it matters most, coach didn't do that.

I mean, if you continue to insist on looking at it in terms of "cost" and "blame," then this is not the right answer, either. Joerger didn't decide for the Kings not to tank so, since "linning" was not his mandate, I don't understand why anybody would be pointing fingers at him?

If you feel the need to blame somebody, then that should begin and end with the person who made the decision not to tank in the first place; that call came from way above the pay grade of the head coach.

 

[ockingsfan]

I mean, if you continue to insist on looking at it in terms of "cost" and "blame," then this is not the right answer, either. Joerger didn't decide for the Kings not to tank so, since "linning" was not his mandate, I don't understand why anybody would be pointing fingers at him?

If you feel the need to blame somebody, then that should begin and end with the person who made the decision not to tank in the first place; that call came from way above the pay grade of the head coach.

I think the FO did put down the directive to "tank" or "Lin", that is why the team announced way back in January that they would "rest" the vets. I think the message was clear that winning was not the priority and "Linning" was fine.

Now, once the kids started performing better than expected and winning more games than expected, if the mandate from the FO was to maximize their draft position, I think the coaches job would be to recognize where they stood in the standings, heading into a meaningless last game with a "resting" Houston. He should had "rested" Buddy, Fox, WCS, Bogdan for that final game.

As I have stated in other threads, I am perfectly fine with winning with the young guys during the "body" of the season, but there was absolutley no reason why we shouldn't had out right tanked that last Houston game to guarantee us the #6 slot.

Clearly, Joeger did not feel that way and he played all the "good" young guys in that meaningless final last game. That cost the Kings the #6 pick, plain and simple.

 

[Telemachus]

I think the FO did put down the directive to "tank" or "Lin", that is why the team announced way back in January that they would "rest" the vets. I think the message was clear that winning was not the priority and "Linning" was fine.

Now, once the kids started performing better than expected and winning more games than expected, if the mandate from the FO was to maximize their draft position, I think the coaches job would be to recognize where they stood in the standings, heading into a meaningless last game with a "resting" Houston. He should had "rested" Buddy, Fox, WCS, Bogdan for that final game.

As I have stated in other threads, I am perfectly fine with winning with the young guys during the "body" of the season, but there was absolutley no reason why we shouldn't had out right tanked that last Houston game to guarantee us the #6 slot.

Clearly, Joeger did not feel that way and he played all the "good" young guys in that meaningless final last game. That cost the Kings the #6 pick, plain and simple.

Actually, Vlade made it clear during the press conference that the Kings decided mid season to give the young players more playing time. They wanted to give them opportunities to play more and see how they do in different situations. He said nothing about tanking. Now it is kind of hard to play your young players more minutes if they are sitting on the bench because that is the only way to secure a loss.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I think the FO did put down the directive to "tank" or "Lin", that is why the team announced way back in January that they would "rest" the vets. I think the message was clear that winning was not the priority and "Linning" was fine.

I don't have twenty minutes to listen to that press conference, so I'm going to take @burekijogurt's synopsis as credible: according to @burekijogurt, Divac stated during the post conference that the Kings were not trying to tank. Which indicates to me that they were not trying to "lin." What information do you have which contradicts this? Resting the veteran players does not communicate to me that they were trying to "lin."

Now, once the kids started performing better than expected and winning more games than expected, if the mandate from the FO was to maximize their draft position...

... Clearly, Joeger did not feel that way and he played all the "good" young guys in that meaningless final last game. That cost the Kings the #6 pick, plain and simple.

Okay, I'll bite: if you think that Vlade Divac gave Dave Joerger a mandate to "maximize draft position," and Dave Joerger defied him, and went against those orders, then what is your explanation for why Dave Joerger still has a job?

 

[whozit]

....


Clearly, Joeger did not feel that way and he played all the "good" young guys in that meaningless final last game. That cost the Kings the #6 pick, plain and simple.

The first part of your post I can agree with. I'm not sure about this last part. I don't know the players or their psycy. What if the players wouldn't accept that mentality? That is part of the equation we just don't know. I have an idea but that could me projecting my thoughts on them.

 

[whozit]

I don't have twenty minutes to listen to that press conference, so I'm going to take @burekijogurt's synopsis as credible: according to @burekijogurt, Divac stated during the post conference that the Kings were not trying to tank. Which indicates to me that they were not trying to "lin." What information do you have which contradicts this? Resting the veteran players does not communicate to me that they were trying to "lin."

Okay, I'll bite: if you think that Vlade Divac gave Dave Joerger a mandate to "maximize draft position," and Dave Joerger defied him, and went against those orders, then what is your explanation for why Dave Joerger still has a job?

Two people can hear the same thing and come to different conclusions. Simple as that.

I took it at they were going to play the youngsters results be darned. I don't remember the games but I don't think the Kings were entirely innocent on who they played. But whoever they played, they played to win.

 

[ockingsfan]

I don't have twenty minutes to listen to that press conference, so I'm going to take @burekijogurt's synopsis as credible: according to @burekijogurt, Divac stated during the post conference that the Kings were not trying to tank. Which indicates to me that they were not trying to "lin." What information do you have which contradicts this? Resting the veteran players does not communicate to me that they were trying to "lin."

Actually, Vlade made it clear during the press conference that the Kings decided mid season to give the young players more playing time. They wanted to give them opportunities to play more and see how they do in different situations. He said nothing about tanking. Now it is kind of hard to play your young players more minutes if they are sitting on the bench because that is the only way to secure a loss.

Look, in the NBA when you go "young" and give the majority of the time to the young guys, that means you are not expecting to go for wins. That means you are okay and expecting losses.

After what happened with Dallas, no F.O. and coach will come out and say we were trying to "tank".

But when you go "young" half way through the season and announce it, that means winning every game is not the priority. The byproduct of not going for wins every game, is to lose more games.

Like I have said many, many times, I am fine with the wins that the young kids won during the season, but it is the failure of the Coach and the F.O. to recognize the importance of Lining that last game against Houston that bites. I mean really, any other competent team in that situation would had made sure to get the Lin.

Even if the Kings didn't choose to outright tank the season, they needed to tank that last game. That was the difference from picking #6 and falling to #7.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Look, in the NBA when you go "young" and give the majority of the time to the young guys, that means you are not expecting to go for wins. That means you are okay and expecting losses.

After what happened with Dallas, no F.O. and coach will come out and say we were trying to "tank".

But when you go "young" half way through the season and announce it, that means winning every game is not the priority. The byproduct of not going for wins every game, is to lose more games.

Those two things don't mean the same thing. And, even if they did, it still comes down to the decision being made above the coach's pay grade.

 

[Larry David]

Business operations folks who: have a large influence on the perimeters of the canvas of basketball operations; think they get basketball because they've been around for a while; but are bad at how basketball teams actually work over the short term.

* We want to be good when we get into the new areas for business reasons. We don't really have the assets to that. Good in the new arena. Shooting for that might not just fall short, but set us back over the long haul. Good in the new arena.

* Same folks were undoubtedly cautioning against a conventional tank job and rebuild. They thought it would cost too much money over 1 or 2 years. Over the long haul, it probably costs them more to play it this way.

 

[ockingsfan]

Those two things don't mean the same thing. And, even if they did, it still comes down to the decision being made above the coach's pay grade.

There should had been a clear line of communication for all involved.

As a franchise, the obvious best outcome for the future of the organization was to LIN that Houston game.

If no one in the coaching staff and the F.O. looked at the standings prior to the game to realize the levity of winning that game versus Linning it, I'm just dumbfounded. That would be just sad.

There should had been a decision all across the board of all the coaches and FO to Lin that game, prior to the game starting.

I can tell you this much, I bet Chicago assumed that the Kings would Lin that last game. Can you imagine the excitement and celebration in Chicago when they realized the Kings were actually stupid enough to go for the the WIN!

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

There should had been a clear line of communication for all involved.

I just wonder why you appear to be convinced that there wasn't?

As a franchise, the obvious best outcome for the future of the organization was to LIN that Houston game.

Opinions appear to vary on that, but I'm not at all interested in that discussion, either way.

 

[ockingsfan]

Opinions appear to vary on that, but I'm not at all interested in that discussion, either way.

So, you are telling me that there is a debate between which is better, picking #6 or #7 in the draft? Because that is what that last game cost the Kings.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

So, you are telling me that there is a debate between which is better, picking #6 or #7 in the draft? Because that is what that last game cost the Kings.

That's not what your post said: you said the obvious best outcome for the future of the organization was to LIN that Houston game." I consider whether that was the best outcome for the future of the Kings, and whether the Number Six pick is, objectively, better than the Number Seven pick, to be two different questions.

 

[ockingsfan]

That's not what your post said: you said the obvious best outcome for the future of the organization was to LIN that Houston game." I consider whether that was the best outcome for the future of the Kings, and whether the Number Six pick is, objectively, better than the Number Seven pick, to be two different questions.

Linning that Houston game meant we were guaranteed #6 all to ourselves. Winning that Houston game meant we had a 50/50 chance of falling to #7. This was known before the game even started, because Chicago already Linned.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Linning that Houston game meant we were guaranteed #6 all to ourselves. Winning that Houston game meant we had a 50/50 chance of falling to #7. This was known before the game even started, because Chicago already Linned.

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.

 

[VF21]

Linning that Houston game meant we were guaranteed #6 all to ourselves. Winning that Houston game meant we had a 50/50 chance of falling to #7. This was known before the game even started, because Chicago already Linned.

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.

 

[VF21]

And I'm sorry, LPKingsFan, but it appears as though this discussion is going to continue to permeate every potential thread.

 

[burekijogurt]

Here is what I said: "Well, listening to the season end press conference it seems to me that the Kings did not intend to tank and are not sorry for it. They were using the games to try out different sets and to get more looks at different players. Their plan seems to develop the players, teach them to play the right way, and grow into a winning team. For better or worse."

To clarify, Divac did not mention tanking itself explicitly, but everything said in that presser makes me think that they were not thinking in terms of tanking and/or winning. They were thinking in terms of developing players and evaluating them. For example, they were glad to win bunch of close games, but not because of the wins themselves, but because it was "good to be in those situations" as Joeger said.