The Predictive Power Of Point Differential (Kings = -0.8)
- Thread starter Bricklayer
- Start date
I don't disagree that team culture is a hugely important thing. But Gregg Popovich would be the first to admit that the Spurs culture really began with Tim Duncan who of course was a #1 pick and franchise changing player.
Depending on how Simmons looks when he comes back from injury the Sixers could have the the three best rookies this season. They'll still finish with a bad record, but the long term outlook (if Embiid stays healthy and Simmons is as advertised) should be very bright.The Timberwolves are struggling now but KAT is the real deal and if the T'Wolves build around him well they will be a contender in time. It's worth remembering that the Warriors have the only unanimous MVP in league history and yet they didn't have a winning record until Curry's 4th season in the league. It takes time and usually more than one star player for a team to become a real contender.
So where do those stars come from?
He are the best players in the league this year according to ESPN's ranking and their draft position
LeBron James (drafted 1st overall)
Steph Curry (7th)
Kevin Durant (2nd)
Kawhi Leonard (15th)
Russell Westbrook (4th)
Anthony Davis (1st)
Chris Paul (3rd)
James Harden (3rd)
Paul George (10th)
Damien Lillard (6th)
Karl Anthony Towns (1st)
Blake Griffin (1st)
DeMarcus Cousins (5th)
Draymond Green (35th)
Kyrie Irving (1st)
Of what is arguably the 15 best players in the NBA a third of them were drafted #1 overall. Two thirds were top 5 picks. Only two were taken out of the top ten and only one was taken in the 2nd round. In fact, other than Draymond, all were taken in the first half of the first round.
A little further down the list (#21) you get a late first rounder in Jimmy Butler and a few more slots down (#29) is our own Mr. Irrelevant turned all-star in Isaiah Thomas but most of the top ranked players (and again we can argue over the ordering) are top 10 and usually top 5 draft picks.
Yes, there are always gems that bad teams overlook and good teams snatch up. Tony Parker late in the first and Ginobili in the second not to mention trading George Hill to draft Kawhi at 15. Klay at 11 and Draymond at 35. DeAndre Jordan in the second round. Some of that is scouting, a stable organization that knows how to target players/knows how a specific guy will fit in with your team concept and part of it is luck. The Warriors hit a homerun with Draymond but they took Festus Ezeli ahead of him and could have lost him to another team drafting early in the 2nd. He was a jack of all trades, master of none with a high floor but low ceiling. At least that was the thinking. The Spurs thought Leonard could be groomed as a Bruce Bowen replacement. Even they were surprised at the huge growth in his game. So when preparation and luck combine you get some real success stories. Considering the dysfunction of the Kings and the fact that they drafted Jimmer in the first round, IT's success has to be viewed as luck on the Kings part in terms of drafting him but mostly hard work and talent on IT's part. He succeeded in spite of the culture in Sacramento.
So yes, not every great NBA player was a high draft pick. But most were. And obviously lots of busts in the top of each draft too. Having high picks doesn't guarantee future success, but having high picks and drafting the right guys pretty much does. And of course having high picks in strong drafts. The current draft class has been underwhelming thus far but the next draft should be much stronger. And while it's too early to say for sure, the draft after that looks to be strong up top too.
If the Kings could trade Cousins to Boston for the Nets picks and other pieces (combined with the Kings nosediving without Cousins) Sacramento could end up with two top 7 (or even two top 5, maybe even first overall) picks in both this draft and the next one. If they hit on two of those four picks, you have a foundation that can change the culture and build a winning team. If they miss on most or all of those picks then they are in as bad or worse position than before.
Depending on how Simmons looks when he comes back from injury the Sixers could have the the three best rookies this season. They'll still finish with a bad record, but the long term outlook (if Embiid stays healthy and Simmons is as advertised) should be very bright.The Timberwolves are struggling now but KAT is the real deal and if the T'Wolves build around him well they will be a contender in time. It's worth remembering that the Warriors have the only unanimous MVP in league history and yet they didn't have a winning record until Curry's 4th season in the league. It takes time and usually more than one star player for a team to become a real contender.
So where do those stars come from?
He are the best players in the league this year according to ESPN's ranking and their draft position
LeBron James (drafted 1st overall)
Steph Curry (7th)
Kevin Durant (2nd)
Kawhi Leonard (15th)
Russell Westbrook (4th)
Anthony Davis (1st)
Chris Paul (3rd)
James Harden (3rd)
Paul George (10th)
Damien Lillard (6th)
Karl Anthony Towns (1st)
Blake Griffin (1st)
DeMarcus Cousins (5th)
Draymond Green (35th)
Kyrie Irving (1st)
Of what is arguably the 15 best players in the NBA a third of them were drafted #1 overall. Two thirds were top 5 picks. Only two were taken out of the top ten and only one was taken in the 2nd round. In fact, other than Draymond, all were taken in the first half of the first round.
A little further down the list (#21) you get a late first rounder in Jimmy Butler and a few more slots down (#29) is our own Mr. Irrelevant turned all-star in Isaiah Thomas but most of the top ranked players (and again we can argue over the ordering) are top 10 and usually top 5 draft picks.
Yes, there are always gems that bad teams overlook and good teams snatch up. Tony Parker late in the first and Ginobili in the second not to mention trading George Hill to draft Kawhi at 15. Klay at 11 and Draymond at 35. DeAndre Jordan in the second round. Some of that is scouting, a stable organization that knows how to target players/knows how a specific guy will fit in with your team concept and part of it is luck. The Warriors hit a homerun with Draymond but they took Festus Ezeli ahead of him and could have lost him to another team drafting early in the 2nd. He was a jack of all trades, master of none with a high floor but low ceiling. At least that was the thinking. The Spurs thought Leonard could be groomed as a Bruce Bowen replacement. Even they were surprised at the huge growth in his game. So when preparation and luck combine you get some real success stories. Considering the dysfunction of the Kings and the fact that they drafted Jimmer in the first round, IT's success has to be viewed as luck on the Kings part in terms of drafting him but mostly hard work and talent on IT's part. He succeeded in spite of the culture in Sacramento.
So yes, not every great NBA player was a high draft pick. But most were. And obviously lots of busts in the top of each draft too. Having high picks doesn't guarantee future success, but having high picks and drafting the right guys pretty much does. And of course having high picks in strong drafts. The current draft class has been underwhelming thus far but the next draft should be much stronger. And while it's too early to say for sure, the draft after that looks to be strong up top too.
If the Kings could trade Cousins to Boston for the Nets picks and other pieces (combined with the Kings nosediving without Cousins) Sacramento could end up with two top 7 (or even two top 5, maybe even first overall) picks in both this draft and the next one. If they hit on two of those four picks, you have a foundation that can change the culture and build a winning team. If they miss on most or all of those picks then they are in as bad or worse position than before.
Last edited:
Continuing to suggest we are every bit as deserving of that #8 spot as the team currently occupying it.
Also as things are beginning to shake out nearly 1/3 of the way through the season now, Memphis and OKC are the two teams in the Top 7 that have just been scraping by. And obviously OKC is every bit as dependent on their high use star who plays a violent game not to get hurt as we are.
Look back the other direction and for most of the early season its Denver and those terribly struggling Wolves who look to be the closest to getting competitive. The Wolves have had a semi-competitive +/- most of the year, and are of course somebody to worry about because of all the talent on the team if they ever get it figured out.
Absolutely right and I can't argue with that list. However, some of those stars cannot make their team a real contestant although they have tried it for years. Players like Chris Paul and Blake Griffin should have done better in my opinion because of the overall strength of the Clips roster over the years. When OKC had three of those players (and some other very good ones), they got to the finals, but that was it. Surprisingly, when the starting five + 1 evaporated (Harden, Perkins, Sefolosha, Durant and Ibaka) the team is still playing well. Anthony Davis and Paul George have not been able to make their teams real contenders. Kyrie Irving never made the playoffs (even in the weak East) before LBJ came around. Harden has been the choker so far with the Rockets despite playing with Dwight Howard, one of the true centers of the NBA. I'm not touching the injury record of every one of those teams, because injuries is a fact of life in the NBA and it hurts every team in one way or the other.
I like the T-wolves because of their youth. It's fun to follow young players develop (something that I now miss with the Kings). KAT is the real deal for sure, but he is surrounded with some fantastic players like Wiggins, LaVine, Dieng, Rubio etc. Davis was the real deal as well, but he has nothing around him and that team cannot get anywhere with only Davis as their star. I'm afraid that the Kings cannot either with only DMC as the star. Last year should have been the year with DMC, Gay and Rondo with a pretty good supporting cast. However, it did not happen primarily because of the conflicts with the coaching staff and it was not only Karl that created that. It was more about the culture. Personally, I think that it would be better if the new incoming star player comes to an established coach and develops, but that is not a rule by any means. Kyrie Irving is presently under his 4th coach (if I remember correctly), but his game improved significantly only when Blatt came around. Harden is also under his 4th coach, but only D'Antoni, judging by the present record, seems to get the best out of him. Playoffs will show if it lasts.
You took up the Cousins to Boston trade prospect. It has been convenient not to deal with that subject until now. I guess that the management is under increasing pressure to decide which way they want to go. Is it too late to build anything around DMC? What's the Boston plan here? Move Horford to PF and play DMC at the C? The team that would benefit the most for getting DMC would be the Cavs, but in my opinion they don't have anything to give in return. I was hopeful that a Rudy + someone trade would have provided some improvement, but it obviously did not work out that way. So we are looking at a player that probably will walk without anything in return. I don't see a SF coming in from anywhere and Matt Barnes turning 37 next season (actually this deason), trading Casspi seems to be a problematic move as well.
I like the T-wolves because of their youth. It's fun to follow young players develop (something that I now miss with the Kings). KAT is the real deal for sure, but he is surrounded with some fantastic players like Wiggins, LaVine, Dieng, Rubio etc. Davis was the real deal as well, but he has nothing around him and that team cannot get anywhere with only Davis as their star. I'm afraid that the Kings cannot either with only DMC as the star. Last year should have been the year with DMC, Gay and Rondo with a pretty good supporting cast. However, it did not happen primarily because of the conflicts with the coaching staff and it was not only Karl that created that. It was more about the culture. Personally, I think that it would be better if the new incoming star player comes to an established coach and develops, but that is not a rule by any means. Kyrie Irving is presently under his 4th coach (if I remember correctly), but his game improved significantly only when Blatt came around. Harden is also under his 4th coach, but only D'Antoni, judging by the present record, seems to get the best out of him. Playoffs will show if it lasts.
You took up the Cousins to Boston trade prospect. It has been convenient not to deal with that subject until now. I guess that the management is under increasing pressure to decide which way they want to go. Is it too late to build anything around DMC? What's the Boston plan here? Move Horford to PF and play DMC at the C? The team that would benefit the most for getting DMC would be the Cavs, but in my opinion they don't have anything to give in return. I was hopeful that a Rudy + someone trade would have provided some improvement, but it obviously did not work out that way. So we are looking at a player that probably will walk without anything in return. I don't see a SF coming in from anywhere and Matt Barnes turning 37 next season (actually this deason), trading Casspi seems to be a problematic move as well.
Looking ahead, the schedules are lined up for a potential game for the eighth spot.
Kings next three games:
@ Houston - L
@ Memphis - W
@ Dallas - W
Record - 11-16
Blazers next three games:
v. Thunder - L(?)
@ Denver - W
@ GS - L
Record - 13-16
Then we play Portland at home. A win puts us at 12-16, they go to 13-17, and we are basically tied for eighth.
Kings next three games:
@ Houston - L
@ Memphis - W
@ Dallas - W
Record - 11-16
Blazers next three games:
v. Thunder - L(?)
@ Denver - W
@ GS - L
Record - 13-16
Then we play Portland at home. A win puts us at 12-16, they go to 13-17, and we are basically tied for eighth.
Parcells quote is the truth especially when it comes to this team. It's foolish to argue otherwise. If this current team had a history of winning 40+ games and making the playoffs the last few years.......maybe you give them the benefit of the doubt and argue that they are better than their record. If Cousins and Gay were proven leaders that had lead past teams to the playoffs once again maybe you give them the benefit of the doubt.
However neither of those are true. This current team has no history of winning and it's two best players have no history of winning at the NBA level. Could they ultimately buck their own trend and prove otherwise this season? Sure it's possible but it would be a surprise and go against their own history.
Until that happens the Kings are what their record says they are.
