Ways to Make It Through the Wall
As is normal in bleak situations, there has been a lot of big-picture soul-searching in recent weeks. I think coolcat's two FanPosts on the matter (1, 2) have done a good job exploring the theories to team-building. In the first, the need for a superstar is investigated. In the second, the relative value of draft picks (the difference between top five and picks 6-60, in this case) are looked at.
82games had a fairly technical study on draft pick value a year or so ago, completed by Aaron Barzilai. As you'd expect, higher draft picks more frequently turn into great players. It's a rather steep curve among the top 20 picks -- the average #1 is much better than the average #2, and so forth. Around pick #25, it sort of flattens out. You're also likely to get a stud at #26 as you are at #44, which is to say you are not likely to get a stud in either place.
Barzilai's study finds that getting a top five pick is a boon, but a top four pick would be better, and a top six pick would be better than a top seven pick. Of course, as important as where the pick lands is who makes the pick and obviously who is the pick. In other words, you can screw up a #2 pick, and a #2 pick can screw you. On this note, we can agree Geoff Petrie has been on the whole a marvelous drafter.
There is no disagreement that a solid-to-great draft pick is vital for the development of this team. But as it stands, the team will have one top eight pick -- we don't expect the Kings to return to these depths in 2009-10, I hope. While management must make this pick count for a ton, there is also the matter of the rest of the team.
As has been discussed this week, the current vogue in NBA team-building could be dubbed the Three Star model, or some such thing. Obviously, San Antonio has made it famous with Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. Boston followed with Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen. The Lakers have a trio or a rectangle, I'm not sure. Portland has certainly instituted a triumvirate, and Oklahoma City believes it has itself one as well.
This fits in with some mathematical theory, as well: the Pareto principle, which has been translated to pro basketball by economist David Berri. Basically, the principle states that 80% of production can be traced to 20% of the population. On an NBA team, this means that three players are responsible for 80% of the team's production.
Let's look at, say, San Antonio's three stars in, say, 2006-07. The three stars each had PERs over 20. (Duncan was at 26, Ginobili at 24, Parker at 21.) No other Spurs did. What about the 2007-08 Celtics? Pierce fell just shy of 20, Ray Allen marked just above average ... and Leon Powe marked at 20 in relatively limited minutes. Garnett came in at 25. Boston's role players on the whole came in statistically better than S.A.'s non-star cadre.
Kevin Martin's peak PER is 21, and I think a responsible expectation would be 22-23 in the near future. That'd make him an able #2 in this scenario. The latest struggles of Spencer Hawes and Jason Thompson have sent to duo below 15 ... though I think it is reasonable to believe one will find himself at 19 or better within the next three seasons. (I actually wouldn't be shocked if both made it, so long as the development isn't butchered by injury or worse.) So under the Pareto principle and assuming a healthy Alpha-dog Martin doesn't make a huge leap, the team needs a #1.
Fancy that, being the same conclusion as the previously mentioned theories: Sacramento needs a megastar. Trade, free agency, draft, development: a #1 is needed.
You would not think that player is on the roster. Can Shock be a superstar? Hawes? Donté Greene? The odds would be against any of the kids turning into a superstar, given where they were picked and their individual limitations.
If this is all to be believed, everything the Kings do going forward should fit into the theory that a superstar is required. That affects John Salmons. That affects Brad Miller. That affects Houston's #1, Greene, both Shock & Hawes ... even Martin. If the bigs both make it to better-than-expected things, could Martin be used as bait for a superstar?
Of course, all of this only gets you to contention. From there, you need the right coach, the right role players, the right defense, the right luck and circumstances. It's a long way to the top, and a long way from there to the championship.
1 recs |
25 comments
|
Comments
Desperate fans call for desperate measures
It has been said, is well recounted and summarized above. The road up goes down first. But it is crowded in the cellar. How is this years’ class of draftees? Will the superstar that hopefully ends up here displace one of the current hopefuls? The other stuff (IMO most important – system, system, system) is for another post.
How do you lose with a winning attitude?
by betweentheeyes on Dec 26, 2008 10:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
How do you lose with a winning attitude?
I think this is a big, if not the biggest, reason Theus was let go.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
by Exhibit G on Dec 26, 2008 1:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Its possible we could contend as soon as next season.
Throwing max money at boozer (not necessarily a good thing) plus the 2nd pick nets us rubio would give us a starting lineup of Rubio, Martin, Salmons, Boozer, Hawes/JT. You can win big with that lineup plus beno, garcia, hawes/jt gives us an 8 man rotation that is extremely formidable.
Or we get lucky win the lotto and end up with a boozer-esque player in Blake Griffin, filling out our front court and then we have max money to throw at a PG.
We aren’t in a horrendous position we have money to spend in 09 if we move Miller and 10 if we don’t. A lot of it depends on how lucky we get in the lottery and what we do to complement said luck or lack thereof.
There now I've met the 75 word count. -pookeyguru
by moproblemz on Dec 26, 2008 1:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Ugh
I’m pretty sure I’m firmly opposed to Boozer. Which is a bad thing when you’re talking about a guy whose a legitmate all-star.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Dec 26, 2008 2:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Boozer is a bit of a basketball whore.
Even saying this, Istil don’t see him signing witht he Kings. When he opts out, it is solely to move to the greener pastures of South Beach where even the mormons were thong underwear. I really like Boozer’s skill set but he has proven to be pretty shady in his dealings and not much of a worker when he gets paid.
Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.
by jjham15 on Dec 26, 2008 2:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
With both jj and pookey. The skills are there. The right mentality is not.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
by Exhibit G on Dec 26, 2008 9:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They said the same thing about Chris Webber
Aside from the injury problem, Boozer is amazingly productive on the court. Boozer isn’t a superstar or a #1 guy, but I’m not sure where the Kings can even get another #2 guy at this point.
Shut up and Coach
by Carl on Dec 27, 2008 1:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah be a bit hard to find converts on South Beach
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Dec 26, 2008 10:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I don’t see him as a number 1 star. Remember he had LeBron first and then D-Will in Utah. I don’t see him leading a team to a championship and that’s what we ultimately want, right? Plus he’s going to cost a lot of money that we could spend wisely somewhere else
by eduardo_m7 on Dec 26, 2008 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Utah fans aren't enamored of him either
Which says a lot about how much his inherent value really is. But apparently Pat Riley likes him.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Dec 26, 2008 10:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pat Riley likes him cause they already have D-Wade
What if they didn’t have him? Would they want Boozer as much?
by eduardo_m7 on Dec 27, 2008 1:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Great point ed
And I doubt it.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Dec 27, 2008 11:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Highly unlikely
The only way we free up enough cap space to sign Boozer, is a Miller for Marion deal. But, Miami will probably keep Marion so they can sign Boozer. As far as Rubio goes, he might not even be in this draft. Our most likely picks will be between Holiday, Thabeet or Harden, and only if we draft in the top 4. Also, the way Houston is playing, out pick from them will be 25 or later, which is basicly a early 2nd rounder. And, having two 2nd rounders didn’t help us much last year.
Here’s the only way I see us moving up to a contender next year. 1) We win the Lottory and get the #1 pick. 2) The Thunder get knocked down to #4 which is the lowest position they can fall to if they have the worst record. 3) The Thunder( in need of a lot of help) trade their pick to us for Salmon, MM, and a 2nd round pick or future #1. 4) Hawes & JT improve and become competent starters. 5)Millers contract allows us to sign a great FA.
Other than that, I don’t see us as a contender until 2012.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
by HighTops on Dec 26, 2008 3:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If miami really coveted Boozer they wouldn't have offered Marion for Miller.
So in that regard I don’t think they are really keyed into the 09 FA market (although Boozer reportedly would like to go to south beach). As far as I am concerned Boozer doesn’t care where he plays and will end up with whoever pays him, think mercenary, otherwise why would you split from Lebron land for a couple million.
There now I've met the 75 word count. -pookeyguru
by moproblemz on Dec 26, 2008 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you know for a fact the Miami offered Marion for Miller? Or was it us who made the offer?
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
by HighTops on Dec 26, 2008 5:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like the comparison and the analysis in terms of PER
At the same time, we may not be building a team in the San Antonio mold or the Boston one. The logic does apply to contending teams so it serves as a helpful measure stick. Adding next year’s draft picks we are going to have a very young team that is just going to need a couple years to develop and could be very dangerous.
Kevin Martin does have the make of a #2 option ala Ray Allen. I say we are pretty good if Speed is our number 2 guy once it is all set and done. I have so much faith in Hawes, Greene, and JT that I can definitely see at least one of them becoming another key piece to the puzzle.
Interesting thought: With Brad, Bobby J, Mikki, and K-9 gone by ’10 our oldest player may be Cisco at 28 (assuming Salmons walks)
by eduardo_m7 on Dec 26, 2008 3:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Great.
A considered and clear eyed analysis of the situation, Ziller.
The odds that Hawes, Thompson and/or Greene will become NBA superstars are pretty low if not negligible. I know we all love our hometown players, but the assessments around here of the potential of our current crop of youngsters is overly optimistic. Of the three, personally, I’m most partial to Thompson, although right now I see little evidence that he’ll become a dominant-type player.
Hawes has some gifts and can be a good NBA player, but due to his athletic limitations he’s never gonna be great. Sorry, he’s just not., (although to read some of the comments you’d think he was being confused with Spencer Hayes). If Shawes developed to become almost as good as Brad Miller that would be a great accomplishment for him.
Greene is an absolute unknown. Could be very good someday, but then again he might be out of the league in three years.
Also, yes, Kevin Martin is real, real good, but not great enough to get us where we want to go without big upgrades around him.
Which means your conclusion is right on. We need a Megastar. To return as a power in the Western Conference we need to add at least one young player with the physical ability and talent level approaching that of a Rasheed Wallace, Dirk Nowitzki or Pau Gasol, if not Kevin Garnett.
I’m not saying that means we have to sign a stud free agent, but it sure looks like it since nobody on this roster right now comes very close to meeting that standard.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Dec 26, 2008 8:18 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
I think you’re right about JT. Good player, potential all-star. But not the megastar. The megastars amaze immediately. LeBron could’ve played for the Akron Zips and people would have seen how great he was capable of becoming.
I’m trying to think of how many of the Tier 1 players, the megastars, of this league were unimpressive at one time. Wade, we know what he did with his rookie year. I already mentioned LeBron. Kobe showed the flashes of brilliance very early. Kevin Garnett was always a freakish talent, had issues with the clutch, but he was always an amazing talent. Big men are more mysterious. We knew Shaq, Duncan, Olojuwon, etc would dominate. But we’re unsure still about Yao, Oden, etc. I guess the best example of a late-blooming guard would be T-Mac, but the guy has never done much in the postseason.
I guess my point is that I’m coming around to the idea that we’re still lacking. I’d talked myself into Martin being enough. He’s a key piece. He’s the type of player that would be an AMAZING 2nd option behind a megastar (can you imagine K-Mart complimenting a guy like LeBron, Nash, etc?). But we need the #1.
I always fear it when we begin to turn on the team, and begin plotting the future. Feels like giving up. But we must hope for the best, but plan for the worst.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
by Exhibit G on Dec 26, 2008 9:50 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd because I"ve always had those concerns
But, when you bottom out, you have to start somewhere.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Dec 26, 2008 10:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope
I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m turning on the team. I frickin’ love the Kings, Exhibit! And I’m partial to the idea of building with young, homegrown players from the ground up. But we do need to be realistic.
Man, we need this to be a good draft because none of us around here want the Kings to get a Top 5 pick again for a long loooong time.
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turn professional."
(Hunter Thompson)
by Mucho Moss on Dec 26, 2008 11:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's impossible for me to root for this team
While the veterans are quitting on it. While I hated the prospect of Ron Artest on the KIngs, and found it unbearable by February, I at least understood why he was around. He had value, and brought the Kings something back in a trade with Donte Greene and Houston’s 1st round pick. (B Jax is okay I guess, but the fact he expires is gravy to me. Just gravy.)
On the other hand, what Brad Miller is doing is so nauseauting it’s impossible for me to watch or appreciate anything good he does. Oh you hit a jumper? Play some defense you cockamamie Kendalville cockroach. That sorta thing. This team has bottomed out. It can’t go any lower. No reason for it to sink any deeper. Petrie needs to find a taker for Miller, and when he does, hopefully the trade brings meaningful talent so this team can actually produce before the season ends.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Dec 27, 2008 1:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
with veterans…You can make the case B52 has quit and doesn’t care, but Salmons, Garcia, Mikki and Bobby Jackson haven’t quit.
The more you guys work the trade machine, the happier I am GP is our GM.
by ForThree on Dec 27, 2008 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not saying those 4 have quit
Miller has, and it’s obvious, but Jackson’s attitude isn’t really helping anything much either way at this point. Mikki ditto. Maybe they aren’t hurting matters; but they aren’t helping anything either.
I don’t need to make the case Miller has quit. His play is doing that much better than my poorly strung together words ever could 4-3.
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on
by pookeyguru on Dec 27, 2008 1:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The bad taste of losing lingers
Nicely and courageously stated Mucho. The team is lacking in talent, and talent takes time. I don’t know if I agree that megastars are instantly obvious. And obvious is hard to judge 25 games into the season. If megastardom was so easily seen every #1 draftee would be without argument.
So, Mucho, I agree we need more, we are too quick to praise with our hopeful hearts but there is time yet to judge what we have.
Pookey – BM has turned reefer madness to reefer sadness but GP will pull the trigger when the best deal comes and I don’t expect much in return.
by betweentheeyes on Dec 27, 2008 1:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
These guys need to learn there actually is a wall
Before we worry about anything else. We’re totally lost in the abyss right now, with everyone staring at each other and no one having the foggiest idea who we are.
Its on you GP and Coach Natt. Make some decisions, give these guys some direction, before we can crucify anyone for not knowing right from wrong, some leadership needs to explain in black and white what is right.
The more you guys work the trade machine, the happier I am GP is our GM.
by ForThree on Dec 27, 2008 1:06 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 





















