Winning culture (split from game thread)

[dude12]

I agree with you when you say winning culture is a mindset, I just think the players bring that not the organization. Take a look at the 2006-2007 Celtics. The most winning franchise in the NBA ended the season with 24 wins and at one point lost 18 straight. The next season they made some trades and won the championship the following season, with the same coach that won them 24 games the season before.

Did the Celtics have a winning culture when they won 24 games or did the talent they brought in bring the winning culture

I think players are included in the organization....it's a "all in it together" mentality. Owners, front office, coaches, players....it's everyone. Even in the most stable franchises or unstable too, it can be a year to year thing as your example showed.

It appears to me that Sac is on the right path as far as what they want in their culture...from top to bottom....it's why I don't understand the criticism against the ownership and front office and the supposed "they don't have a plan". That criticism doesn't wash. It's been a clear plan since they trade Boogie. They brought in a Temple a few years ago, Carter and Zbo last year, Hill didnt quite work out but what they wanted from these guys has absolutely worked out. I mean, compared to where this,organization was just about three years ago with the D'Allesandro/Mullin/Karl fiasco.....could it have been more toxic?

 

[kingsboi]

I would argue just the opposite. It is really not that uncommon to see really talented players unable to achieve on particular teams that i would consider unproductive. Look at the Clippers. Up until 20010 when Blake was able to play with Jordaon, Baron and a roster that was actually not half bad. But the culture had not changed, it was still a hot mess that players used as a stopping off place to show what they had.It was every guy for himself and Del Negro could not fix it. By the time Sterling realized that he had accidentally built a decent roster for the first time ever all hecould do was try to copy from the smart kid and bring in a cheap knock off of Boston's culture by bringing in Doc Rivers. To Doc's credit he has done every thing he knows how to change the culture but thus far has only been able to approximate it.

The reason I don't see a wining culture in Clipper town despite making regular play off appearances is that they never were a real threat to see the finals despite being stacked with top talent. I love to bag on Blake for being made of glass, Jordan for being unable to shoot and Paul for flopping but these guys are all still top 5 guys in their positions and the supporting players have been great, but they never made eachother better. I joked for at least 5 seasons that every playoff season when the Clippers choked, just like the ground hog seeing his shadow-we knew that there would be 6 more week of playoffs. They just flat did not have that intangible that we call wining culture.

No team can win big without talent but good players is just not enough when the teams culture is not geared twords producing a wining team.

Don't get me wrong here, I understand that getting talented players isn't the only way to get rid of that stench in the organization of losing year after year but it's definitely a good start. You bring up the Clippers, a team that has even a worse history than the Kings and that's saying something and despite their culture, I'd imagine some of that was too many egos being put on the same team i.e. Paul & Griffin. Jordan is fine with playing 3rd of 4th fiddle so long as he gets his oops and touches from time to time. But it goes to show you that not all talent meshes and that's what happened between them which in return caused rift with the front office and head coach, who just so happens to be the GM as well.

That said, the culture starts from the top and that is a certainty. From there it roots down to the rest of the employees in the organization and within time and patience, the image repairs itself. Some teams unfortunately take a long time to get rid of that image and the Kings happen to be one of them. Viveks been quiet for quite some time now and that's a good start, it's now up to Vlade to field a team together that can mesh and ideally within the next draft or two, they can land themselves a franchise player, if not...they can always take the Denver Nuggets approach and have a lot of solid, young players and sprinkle some vets in there and be content with a 6-8th seed with no chance of a title, but not every team can land themselves a top 5 or top 10 player so they have to play with the cards they are dealt with, which isn't the worst idea especially when you are trying to become a winner.

 

[kingsboi]

This is an example of what kind of culture we don't want around. Punk moves by 2 suns 1 of them who was brought in to be a veteran to their youth and the other just waiting for his nba career to end.

What got me laughing in that video is Chriss not going after Gobert or anyone else on the Jazz but in the process decides to blindside Rubio and then wanting no part of Mitchell as he approaches him, albeit he does stand his ground so who knows what really transpired.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Like it or not we're going to sign someone this offseason who we expect to contribute immediately. I kind of like our chances that this person will be an impactful signing if we close this season strong.

 

[allrightythen]

I'm very interested about your analysis so if its not too much trouble, could you elaborate on that?

I guess I only kept the last one I did. It was a look at All-Stars taken in each draft.

Including every draft 1948-2012 there were 375 All-Stars drafted for an average of 5.77 All-Stars drafted per year. The Median was 6 and the standard deviation of this data set is 2.25 suggesting that 3-8 All-Stars will be available in any given draft. The mode was 5 (normally I don't look at this but I think it's useful in this kind of set). Unfortunately when I looked deeper into the data I found that it is really spread out and the coefficients were very small and the variance was quite high. What that suggests is that the historical data for draft picks is not consistent enough to use a reliable predictor. 12 of the 65 drafts (18.5%) would not fit into the data set with either more or less All-Stars drafted than predicted.

For those who want to use this data it would suggest that if you want to guarantee a shot at an All-star level player you have to be in the top 3. The probabilities suggest that you are equally likely to have an 8 All-star draft as you are a 3 All-star draft so take that as you will. If you really want guarantees you need to tank several years in a row, (see: Philly model) but I can't see another GM trying that.

I did not try to narrow it down by "franchise players" because it's meaning varies from person to person.

The conclusion that I have drawn is the the draft is definitely more fruitful at the top, but that "top" can vary widely from draft to draft and even then you are far more likely to miss than hit. A good front office will find the talent and and good coaching staff will put it together. Looking at this data, there were 3 drafts in which none of the top 3 picks made an All-Star team and 1 draft in which no All-stars were selected outside of the top 5. The majority of drafts (58/65) had All-Stars selected 10 or later. That isn't to say I want the Kings down there, only that in nearly every draft talent gets there. A good front office will find them. Our front office may not be equipped to find top talent there, but if that's the case we have far bigger problems then a few lottery slots.

 

[Gguod]

I guess I only kept the last one I did. It was a look at All-Stars taken in each draft.

Including every draft 1948-2012 there were 375 All-Stars drafted for an average of 5.77 All-Stars drafted per year. The Median was 6 and the standard deviation of this data set is 2.25 suggesting that 3-8 All-Stars will be available in any given draft. The mode was 5 (normally I don't look at this but I think it's useful in this kind of set). Unfortunately when I looked deeper into the data I found that it is really spread out and the coefficients were very small and the variance was quite high. What that suggests is that the historical data for draft picks is not consistent enough to use a reliable predictor. 12 of the 65 drafts (18.5%) would not fit into the data set with either more or less All-Stars drafted than predicted.

For those who want to use this data it would suggest that if you want to guarantee a shot at an All-star level player you have to be in the top 3. The probabilities suggest that you are equally likely to have an 8 All-star draft as you are a 3 All-star draft so take that as you will. If you really want guarantees you need to tank several years in a row, (see: Philly model) but I can't see another GM trying that.

I did not try to narrow it down by "franchise players" because it's meaning varies from person to person.

The conclusion that I have drawn is the the draft is definitely more fruitful at the top, but that "top" can vary widely from draft to draft and even then you are far more likely to miss than hit. A good front office will find the talent and and good coaching staff will put it together. Looking at this data, there were 3 drafts in which none of the top 3 picks made an All-Star team and 1 draft in which no All-stars were selected outside of the top 5. The majority of drafts (58/65) had All-Stars selected 10 or later. That isn't to say I want the Kings down there, only that in nearly every draft talent gets there. A good front office will find them. Our front office may not be equipped to find top talent there, but if that's the case we have far bigger problems then a few lottery slots.

Nice to see that someone has put some effort in. I just dont think that looking for players witha a single all star appereance is the best way to build that data. When we talk about franchise players I think we need multiple all stars since there are players like Mo Williams that are all stars but nowhere near franchise players. When we look for players that are multiple all stars, the odds suggest that they are much more likely found top3 than for example 4-6.

 

[allrightythen]

Nice to see that someone has put some effort in. I just dont think that looking for players witha a single all star appereance is the best way to build that data. When we talk about franchise players I think we need multiple all stars since there are players like Mo Williams that are all stars but nowhere near franchise players. When we look for players that are multiple all stars, the odds suggest that they are much more likely found top3 than for example 4-6.

I can understand that. Adding All-Star appearances may help you increase the quality of player your looking at but I don't believe it does anything to make the data more reliable.

I'm really tired of the tanking conversation though. I won't be running any more numbers. The whole discussion just makes me hate basketball.

 

[kingsfan101]

I have been a proponent of letting kids play, and if they win, then count these wins as good, with the resulting growth compensating for the slide in the pick.

However, even I'm getting concerned by our relative good play compared to the performance of our fellow bottom dwellers, some of whom have taken up (or rather down) tanking to an art form.

Currently we sit at 7th, and are playing better than any team below us, and even some teams above us. It's certainly possible that we end up with the 9th worst record in the league. Till a few weeks ago, we were looking at a decent chance of a top 3 pick. I was at peace with a relative drop if it helped the current lot of kids improve. Now suddenly, we are looking at the 9th pick.

While these victories may give temporary joy, few years down the line, when Ayton/Doncic are putting up all NBA numbers, while our 9th pick is hoping to make it to the all-star team, we may rue these victories. I don't want to be the sourpuss (even though I know I am being exactly that right now), but in our situation (no established star, no pick next year), we need to pick high in this draft, and unless we get really lucky, we've played ourselves out of that.

I know people give examples of late picks turning out all stars, but surely, such examples are lot rarer than high picks ending up as superstars. Couple of extra wins at this stage, suddenly don't seem so exciting to me.

Don't know what's the solution though. I certainly won't advocate that kids don't try to win. I wouldn't mind seeing a little bit more of Bruno though. He might help in the draft position, and also give us a better idea of what to do with him next season. Depending on who opts in/out, we might have lot of cap, roster space, and not too many willing FAs. Knowing what we have in him would be important in such a scenario (though hopefully, the management and the coaching staff already do).

 

[sactowndog]

I guess I only kept the last one I did. It was a look at All-Stars taken in each draft.

Including every draft 1948-2012 there were 375 All-Stars drafted for an average of 5.77 All-Stars drafted per year. The Median was 6 and the standard deviation of this data set is 2.25 suggesting that 3-8 All-Stars will be available in any given draft. The mode was 5 (normally I don't look at this but I think it's useful in this kind of set). Unfortunately when I looked deeper into the data I found that it is really spread out and the coefficients were very small and the variance was quite high. What that suggests is that the historical data for draft picks is not consistent enough to use a reliable predictor. 12 of the 65 drafts (18.5%) would not fit into the data set with either more or less All-Stars drafted than predicted.

For those who want to use this data it would suggest that if you want to guarantee a shot at an All-star level player you have to be in the top 3. The probabilities suggest that you are equally likely to have an 8 All-star draft as you are a 3 All-star draft so take that as you will. If you really want guarantees you need to tank several years in a row, (see: Philly model) but I can't see another GM trying that.

I did not try to narrow it down by "franchise players" because it's meaning varies from person to person.

The conclusion that I have drawn is the the draft is definitely more fruitful at the top, but that "top" can vary widely from draft to draft and even then you are far more likely to miss than hit. A good front office will find the talent and and good coaching staff will put it together. Looking at this data, there were 3 drafts in which none of the top 3 picks made an All-Star team and 1 draft in which no All-stars were selected outside of the top 5. The majority of drafts (58/65) had All-Stars selected 10 or later. That isn't to say I want the Kings down there, only that in nearly every draft talent gets there. A good front office will find them. Our front office may not be equipped to find top talent there, but if that's the case we have far bigger problems then a few lottery slots.

I think your data would be more interesting run on 3 time all stars versus a single all star selection. A 3 time all star is a much better proxy for an impact player. Depending on conference strength and injuries random players like Dragic will make a team and that drives much of your variation in number of all stars per year.

I think another interesting fact would be the distribution of 3 time all stars selected 10 or later. Is it concentrated in a few excellent front offices or randomly scattered meaning it’s a low chance at just dumb luck. In either case, dumb luck or finding and keeping a top 10% Talent evaluator is a low probability.

 

[allrightythen]

I think your data would be more interesting run on 3 time all stars versus a single all star selection. A 3 time all star is a much better proxy for an impact player. Depending on conference strength and injuries random players like Dragic will make a team and that drives much of your variation in number of all stars per year.

I think another interesting fact would be the distribution of 3 time all stars selected 10 or later. Is it concentrated in a few excellent front offices or randomly scattered meaning it’s a low chance at just dumb luck. In either case, dumb luck or finding and keeping a top 10% Talent evaluator is a low probability.

Go for it.

The truth is the odds of getting a star in the draft of any kind suck so we should expect to fail wherever we draft. That's not hyperbole or defeatist, its just what the math shows.

 

[sactowndog]

Go for it.

The truth is the odds of getting a star in the draft of any kind suck so we should expect to fail wherever we draft. That's not hyperbole or defeatist, its just was the math shows.

See the tread on top 5 picks... Outliers don't have too much impact because as you state it is hard. But it is really hard outside of the top 5.

 

[allrightythen]

See the tread on top 5 picks... Outliers don't have too much impact because as you state it is hard. But it is really hard outside of the top 5.

Top 5 odds still 70% chance of failure and climbing. I think the rational expectation should be that we will miss on a draft pick.

 

[sactowndog]

Top 5 odds still 70% chance of failure and climbing. I think the rational expectation should be that we will miss on a draft pick.

Well if you are top 3 you have a one in 3 chance of success with a standard deviation of 2 in 3. That is why top 3 is so important and why the Kings not having one in the past quarter century so bad.

 

[Andriod_KiNg]

Can you establish a winning culture by beating g league teams by a point with our best players ?

 

[Turgenev]

Aside from my disinterest in providing 'data' re the value of a winning culture, I'm not sure that it can be quantified.

I would agree that tanking to obtain a good draft pick or picks has had value for some. Nothing is promised though. Examples:
- Cleveland tanked to get their home grown golden child LBJ. LeBron won his first championship with Miami. He did win a championship with Cleveland after signing as a free agent.
- In 1992 Orlando drafted Shaq with the first pick of the NBA draft. They had an opportunity to be great when they paired him with Penny. Shaq left.

There are alternative pathways to success. Examples:
- In 1996 Peja Stojakovic was drafted at 14 by the Kings. In 1998 the Kings drafted Jason Williams at 7. They traded Mitch Richmond and Otis Thorpe for Chris Webber and signed Vlade Divacs. After trading Jason Williams for Mike Bibby, the team won 59 games in the regular season and came within one game of winning a championship in 2002. The same year Golden State won 38 games and were in season 8 of a 12-year playoff drought.
- In 2004 the Detroit Pistons traded spare change for Rasheed Wallace. His team mates included Chauncy Billups (a former under-performing no 3 pick on his third team), Rip Hamilton (who was traded for Jason Stackhouse), Tayshaun Prince (a no 23 pick), and franchise favourite Ben Wallace (undrafted). They won a championship. Their No 2 pick (Darko) didn’t help.

There is risk in committing oneself to only one form of logic. Example:
- The year the Kings drafted Tyreke Evans, there were posters on this forum adamant he was a better pick than Steph Curry. ‘Tyreke is the type of player you win championships with, Steph is not’. And in fairness, he did pretty well for a minute while Steph struggled with durability issues.

Philadelphia's current promise can be attributed mostly to draft picks. Sure. But. What other steps have they taken to improve their culture? In 2015 they hired David Martin as their head of sport science. Prior to joining the 76ers, Dr Martin spent 21 years working with the Australian Institute of Sport as well as leading Australian and European cycling teams. How much difference will this make to now or the future? Probably slim. But if you can't measure it you can't test it. ... On the Australian Institute of Sports. They were really successful until other countries copied what they were doing. i.e. an innovative and novel approach to performance worked until it was less innovative and less novel. Tanking is no longer innovative or novel. Sadly, too many bachelors and not enough roses.

Where do I stand re the current Kings and their future? There is reason for optimism. The current roster has several quality NBA players who will improve. There is some money for free agents. There is a draft pick coming. There is more stability in both the front office and coaching team than there was previously. The owner appears more settled. Will this equal success in a few years? I don’t know. Have I been optimistic before, only to be left with 82 objectionable box scores? Sure. Will there be some more missteps. Yes (maybe you would feel better if we referred to any future mistakes as "Nerlens Noels" as this seems to be a context you appreciate). What does this leave me with as a fan? Certainly, no less than if the kings spent 5 years trying to get as many first round picks as possible.

 

[burekijogurt]

Can you establish a winning culture by beating g league teams by a point with our best players ?

if we played Bruno Caboclo last night and only Bruno Caboclo sitting the other 11 players, and Bruno somehow lost the game, what would change for the future of the franchise? even with Bruno loss we would end up 6th or at best tied for 5/6...

 

[sactowndog]

if we played Bruno Caboclo last night and only Bruno Caboclo sitting the other 11 players, and Bruno somehow lost the game, what would change for the future of the franchise? even with Bruno loss we would end up 6th or at best tied for 5/6...

The issue isn’t this game alone. The issue is the downside if we win the Houston game. So your correct it’s only half bad but it’s puts a one small step away from losing another couple spots.

 

[sactowndog]

Aside from my disinterest in providing 'data' re the value of a winning culture, I'm not sure that it can be quantified.

I would agree that tanking to obtain a good draft pick or picks has had value for some. Nothing is promised though. Examples:
- Cleveland tanked to get their home grown golden child LBJ. LeBron won his first championship with Miami. He did win a championship with Cleveland after signing as a free agent.
- In 1992 Orlando drafted Shaq with the first pick of the NBA draft. They had an opportunity to be great when they paired him with Penny. Shaq left.

There are alternative pathways to success. Examples:
- In 1996 Peja Stojakovic was drafted at 14 by the Kings. In 1998 the Kings drafted Jason Williams at 7. They traded Mitch Richmond and Otis Thorpe for Chris Webber and signed Vlade Divacs. After trading Jason Williams for Mike Bibby, the team won 59 games in the regular season and came within one game of winning a championship in 2002. The same year Golden State won 38 games and were in season 8 of a 12-year playoff drought.
- In 2004 the Detroit Pistons traded spare change for Rasheed Wallace. His team mates included Chauncy Billups (a former under-performing no 3 pick on his third team), Rip Hamilton (who was traded for Jason Stackhouse), Tayshaun Prince (a no 23 pick), and franchise favourite Ben Wallace (undrafted). They won a championship. Their No 2 pick (Darko) didn’t help.

There is risk in committing oneself to only one form of logic. Example:
- The year the Kings drafted Tyreke Evans, there were posters on this forum adamant he was a better pick than Steph Curry. ‘Tyreke is the type of player you win championships with, Steph is not’. And in fairness, he did pretty well for a minute while Steph struggled with durability issues.

Philadelphia's current promise can be attributed mostly to draft picks. Sure. But. What other steps have they taken to improve their culture? In 2015 they hired David Martin as their head of sport science. Prior to joining the 76ers, Dr Martin spent 21 years working with the Australian Institute of Sport as well as leading Australian and European cycling teams. How much difference will this make to now or the future? Probably slim. But if you can't measure it you can't test it. ... On the Australian Institute of Sports. They were really successful until other countries copied what they were doing. i.e. an innovative and novel approach to performance worked until it was less innovative and less novel. Tanking is no longer innovative or novel. Sadly, too many bachelors and not enough roses.

Where do I stand re the current Kings and their future? There is reason for optimism. The current roster has several quality NBA players who will improve. There is some money for free agents. There is a draft pick coming. There is more stability in both the front office and coaching team than there was previously. The owner appears more settled. Will this equal success in a few years? I don’t know. Have I been optimistic before, only to be left with 82 objectionable box scores? Sure. Will there be some more missteps. Yes (maybe you would feel better if we referred to any future mistakes as "Nerlens Noels" as this seems to be a context you appreciate). What does this leave me with as a fan? Certainly, no less than if the kings spent 5 years trying to get as many first round picks as possible.

I have avoided this thread but a winning culture is not defined by a your supposed future core eeking out a win against a team of D Leaguers.

A winning culture is a team that passes the ball unselfishing, that expends energy on defense and helps appropriately. You see those things with the Celtics who stand at 50+ wins despite missing key players for most of the year. The same can be said for the Spurs. You saw it at Butler when it was called the “Butler Way”. This fundamentals of winning can be seen in how you play the game whether you win or lose.

By and large, the Kings have not exhibited a winning culture. Our bigs are near the bottom of passing out to open 3 point shooters. Instead they force shots against double and triple teams. This fact was shown and highlighted in the Boston Kings telecast as a key difference between the teams. Our guards drive into the lane and force shoots instead of breaking down the D and passing off. Memphis players drove the lane for easy buckets at will because our defense was so bad. We are near the bottom of the league in defending the three.

Besides Bogdan and an improving Buddy, the Kings do not have a winning culture. We have a Kentucky culture based on individual flashes of me/my athletic brilliance. Giles may tip the balance for us next year but what we saw at Memphis was not establishing a winning culture.

 

[John Galt]

Aside from my disinterest in providing 'data' re the value of a winning culture, I'm not sure that it can be quantified.

I would agree that tanking to obtain a good draft pick or picks has had value for some. Nothing is promised though. Examples:
- Cleveland tanked to get their home grown golden child LBJ. LeBron won his first championship with Miami. He did win a championship with Cleveland after signing as a free agent.
- In 1992 Orlando drafted Shaq with the first pick of the NBA draft. They had an opportunity to be great when they paired him with Penny. Shaq left.

There are alternative pathways to success. Examples:
- In 1996 Peja Stojakovic was drafted at 14 by the Kings. In 1998 the Kings drafted Jason Williams at 7. They traded Mitch Richmond and Otis Thorpe for Chris Webber and signed Vlade Divacs. After trading Jason Williams for Mike Bibby, the team won 59 games in the regular season and came within one game of winning a championship in 2002. The same year Golden State won 38 games and were in season 8 of a 12-year playoff drought.
- In 2004 the Detroit Pistons traded spare change for Rasheed Wallace. His team mates included Chauncy Billups (a former under-performing no 3 pick on his third team), Rip Hamilton (who was traded for Jason Stackhouse), Tayshaun Prince (a no 23 pick), and franchise favourite Ben Wallace (undrafted). They won a championship. Their No 2 pick (Darko) didn’t help.

There is risk in committing oneself to only one form of logic. Example:
- The year the Kings drafted Tyreke Evans, there were posters on this forum adamant he was a better pick than Steph Curry. ‘Tyreke is the type of player you win championships with, Steph is not’. And in fairness, he did pretty well for a minute while Steph struggled with durability issues.

Philadelphia's current promise can be attributed mostly to draft picks. Sure. But. What other steps have they taken to improve their culture? In 2015 they hired David Martin as their head of sport science. Prior to joining the 76ers, Dr Martin spent 21 years working with the Australian Institute of Sport as well as leading Australian and European cycling teams. How much difference will this make to now or the future? Probably slim. But if you can't measure it you can't test it. ... On the Australian Institute of Sports. They were really successful until other countries copied what they were doing. i.e. an innovative and novel approach to performance worked until it was less innovative and less novel. Tanking is no longer innovative or novel. Sadly, too many bachelors and not enough roses.

Where do I stand re the current Kings and their future? There is reason for optimism. The current roster has several quality NBA players who will improve. There is some money for free agents. There is a draft pick coming. There is more stability in both the front office and coaching team than there was previously. The owner appears more settled. Will this equal success in a few years? I don’t know. Have I been optimistic before, only to be left with 82 objectionable box scores? Sure. Will there be some more missteps. Yes (maybe you would feel better if we referred to any future mistakes as "Nerlens Noels" as this seems to be a context you appreciate). What does this leave me with as a fan? Certainly, no less than if the kings spent 5 years trying to get as many first round picks as possible.

This is a wonderful post! Amen

 

[HndsmCelt]

Well you sure as heck can establish it by losing to them!

 

[HndsmCelt]

Well if you are top 3 you have a one in 3 chance of success with a standard deviation of 2 in 3. That is why top 3 is so important and why the Kings not having one in the past quarter century so bad.

And yet in 2009 the Kings won 17 games for the post record in the league...

 

[sactowndog]

Well you sure as heck can establish it by losing to them!

If you play well and right but still lose by 1 you will still be establishing a winning culture.

 

[VF21]

If you play well and right but still lose by 1 you will still be establishing a winning culture.

Yeah, no. If you play well and right and still lose by 1 you establish a team that is unable to finish.

 

[burekijogurt]

The issue isn’t this game alone. The issue is the downside if we win the Houston game. So your correct it’s only half bad but it’s puts a one small step away from losing another couple spots.

Right, the issue, in this tread, is the relative merit of losing on purpose to improve your lottery position along with unintended consequences of said losing, versus teaching a young team how to win and play at the expense of your lottery position.

Not going to go into that discussion but will just answer the question that was asked about how beating a G league team contributes to winning culture.

In my opinion a question like that does not even get asked by a team that has a winning mentality. Spurs and Boston do not say to themselves tonight we are playing Warriors B team so we can take it easy, or bottom of the barrel Kings/Phoenix/Hawks so winning does not mean much, or some scrubs from G league from Memphis which are not even worthy of us competing for real.

No, my guess is that they go into each and every game saying tonight we are playing an NBA team, and we have to play our best basketball and approach this game with utmost professionalism if we want to win. And they go and execute and compete hard. And if they do get the win, they respect it because they know how hard it is to win in the NBA.

 

[sactowndog]

Yeah, no. If you play well and right and still lose by 1 you establish a team that is unable to finish.

1 game from 82 doesn’t matter much. What matters is how you play the game. Play it right and the wins will come.

 

[sactowndog]

Right, the issue, in this tread, is the relative merit of losing on purpose to improve your lottery position along with unintended consequences of said losing, versus teaching a young team how to win and play at the expense of your lottery position.

Not going to go into that discussion but will just answer the question that was asked about how beating a G league team contributes to winning culture.

In my opinion a question like that does not even get asked by a team that has a winning mentality. Spurs and Boston do not say to themselves tonight we are playing Warriors B team so we can take it easy, or bottom of the barrel Kings/Phoenix/Hawks so winning does not mean much, or some scrubs from G league from Memphis which are not even worthy of us competing for real.

No, my guess is that they go into each and every game saying tonight we are playing an NBA team, and we have to play our best basketball and approach this game with utmost professionalism if we want to win. And they go and execute and compete hard. And if they do get the win, they respect it because they know how hard it is to win in the NBA.

The Celtics don’t go into a game measuring themselves by wins or losses. Have you heard many Brad talks? The Celtics care about how you play. Do you make the right switches, do you make the pass to open shooters, do you put in effort on defense. It was the same at Butler except there they call it the Butler way.

 

[sactowndog]

Right, the issue, in this tread, is the relative merit of losing on purpose to improve your lottery position along with unintended consequences of said losing, versus teaching a young team how to win and play at the expense of your lottery position.

Not going to go into that discussion but will just answer the question that was asked about how beating a G league team contributes to winning culture.

In my opinion a question like that does not even get asked by a team that has a winning mentality. Spurs and Boston do not say to themselves tonight we are playing Warriors B team so we can take it easy, or bottom of the barrel Kings/Phoenix/Hawks so winning does not mean much, or some scrubs from G league from Memphis which are not even worthy of us competing for real.

No, my guess is that they go into each and every game saying tonight we are playing an NBA team, and we have to play our best basketball and approach this game with utmost professionalism if we want to win. And they go and execute and compete hard. And if they do get the win, they respect it because they know how hard it is to win in the NBA.

By the way to further answer your question the Celtics are playing Yabusele because they think they will need him down the road and want to get him prepared. So yes the Celtics are taking the long view also.

 

[biltalent]

Aside from my disinterest in providing 'data' re the value of a winning culture, I'm not sure that it can be quantified.

I would agree that tanking to obtain a good draft pick or picks has had value for some. Nothing is promised though. Examples:
- Cleveland tanked to get their home grown golden child LBJ. LeBron won his first championship with Miami. He did win a championship with Cleveland after signing as a free agent.
- In 1992 Orlando drafted Shaq with the first pick of the NBA draft. They had an opportunity to be great when they paired him with Penny. Shaq left.

There are alternative pathways to success. Examples:
- In 1996 Peja Stojakovic was drafted at 14 by the Kings. In 1998 the Kings drafted Jason Williams at 7. They traded Mitch Richmond and Otis Thorpe for Chris Webber and signed Vlade Divacs. After trading Jason Williams for Mike Bibby, the team won 59 games in the regular season and came within one game of winning a championship in 2002. The same year Golden State won 38 games and were in season 8 of a 12-year playoff drought.
- In 2004 the Detroit Pistons traded spare change for Rasheed Wallace. His team mates included Chauncy Billups (a former under-performing no 3 pick on his third team), Rip Hamilton (who was traded for Jason Stackhouse), Tayshaun Prince (a no 23 pick), and franchise favourite Ben Wallace (undrafted). They won a championship. Their No 2 pick (Darko) didn’t help.

There is risk in committing oneself to only one form of logic. Example:
- The year the Kings drafted Tyreke Evans, there were posters on this forum adamant he was a better pick than Steph Curry. ‘Tyreke is the type of player you win championships with, Steph is not’. And in fairness, he did pretty well for a minute while Steph struggled with durability issues.

Philadelphia's current promise can be attributed mostly to draft picks. Sure. But. What other steps have they taken to improve their culture? In 2015 they hired David Martin as their head of sport science. Prior to joining the 76ers, Dr Martin spent 21 years working with the Australian Institute of Sport as well as leading Australian and European cycling teams. How much difference will this make to now or the future? Probably slim. But if you can't measure it you can't test it. ... On the Australian Institute of Sports. They were really successful until other countries copied what they were doing. i.e. an innovative and novel approach to performance worked until it was less innovative and less novel. Tanking is no longer innovative or novel. Sadly, too many bachelors and not enough roses.

Where do I stand re the current Kings and their future? There is reason for optimism. The current roster has several quality NBA players who will improve. There is some money for free agents. There is a draft pick coming. There is more stability in both the front office and coaching team than there was previously. The owner appears more settled. Will this equal success in a few years? I don’t know. Have I been optimistic before, only to be left with 82 objectionable box scores? Sure. Will there be some more missteps. Yes (maybe you would feel better if we referred to any future mistakes as "Nerlens Noels" as this seems to be a context you appreciate). What does this leave me with as a fan? Certainly, no less than if the kings spent 5 years trying to get as many first round picks as possible.

Excellent post. You should definitely post more often if you can find the time.

 

[Tetsujin]

I have no idea whether or not this helps provide a winning culture or not but I can't ever remember something like this ever happening before:

https://twitter.com/statuses/982652552423624704

Were it not for our young guys being clutch as hell, the Kings would probably be the proud owners of the worst record in the league so blame the vets, I guess.

 

[King Baller]

Aside from my disinterest in providing 'data' re the value of a winning culture, I'm not sure that it can be quantified.

I would agree that tanking to obtain a good draft pick or picks has had value for some. Nothing is promised though. Examples:
- Cleveland tanked to get their home grown golden child LBJ. LeBron won his first championship with Miami. He did win a championship with Cleveland after signing as a free agent.
- In 1992 Orlando drafted Shaq with the first pick of the NBA draft. They had an opportunity to be great when they paired him with Penny. Shaq left.

There are alternative pathways to success. Examples:
- In 1996 Peja Stojakovic was drafted at 14 by the Kings. In 1998 the Kings drafted Jason Williams at 7. They traded Mitch Richmond and Otis Thorpe for Chris Webber and signed Vlade Divacs. After trading Jason Williams for Mike Bibby, the team won 59 games in the regular season and came within one game of winning a championship in 2002. The same year Golden State won 38 games and were in season 8 of a 12-year playoff drought.
- In 2004 the Detroit Pistons traded spare change for Rasheed Wallace. His team mates included Chauncy Billups (a former under-performing no 3 pick on his third team), Rip Hamilton (who was traded for Jason Stackhouse), Tayshaun Prince (a no 23 pick), and franchise favourite Ben Wallace (undrafted). They won a championship. Their No 2 pick (Darko) didn’t help.

There is risk in committing oneself to only one form of logic. Example:
- The year the Kings drafted Tyreke Evans, there were posters on this forum adamant he was a better pick than Steph Curry. ‘Tyreke is the type of player you win championships with, Steph is not’. And in fairness, he did pretty well for a minute while Steph struggled with durability issues.

Philadelphia's current promise can be attributed mostly to draft picks. Sure. But. What other steps have they taken to improve their culture? In 2015 they hired David Martin as their head of sport science. Prior to joining the 76ers, Dr Martin spent 21 years working with the Australian Institute of Sport as well as leading Australian and European cycling teams. How much difference will this make to now or the future? Probably slim. But if you can't measure it you can't test it. ... On the Australian Institute of Sports. They were really successful until other countries copied what they were doing. i.e. an innovative and novel approach to performance worked until it was less innovative and less novel. Tanking is no longer innovative or novel. Sadly, too many bachelors and not enough roses.

Where do I stand re the current Kings and their future? There is reason for optimism. The current roster has several quality NBA players who will improve. There is some money for free agents. There is a draft pick coming. There is more stability in both the front office and coaching team than there was previously. The owner appears more settled. Will this equal success in a few years? I don’t know. Have I been optimistic before, only to be left with 82 objectionable box scores? Sure. Will there be some more missteps. Yes (maybe you would feel better if we referred to any future mistakes as "Nerlens Noels" as this seems to be a context you appreciate). What does this leave me with as a fan? Certainly, no less than if the kings spent 5 years trying to get as many first round picks as possible.

"Nerlens Noel" "Jahlil Okafor"