My favorite part is Berri pointing out why the Kings didn’t make any great improvements. Well, because they COULDN’T. (Not having cap room tends to do that to you.) But, hey, it’s Dave Berri.

At least you know his writing’s meant to be funny.

That’s +7 without a major free agent acquisition. I think that would be successful, although at the lower threshold. I really feel like anything more than 25 wins would really be phenomenal, to be honest.

So if we added 2 crappy Redacteds from last years team as players 9 and 10 to the Kings this year we will win a lot more games? No one is this moronic that isn’t an ex president.

is that the ONLY player that we had last year to play in every game was … Jason Thompson. It puts our season in perspective realizing that we never had a starting squad that stayed consistent. The only rhythm we had last year was arhythmia.

who are great at statistics and terrible at the application of them.

So you’re going to take a derivative statistic, and solely based on that datapoint making sweeping judgements about the upcoming season?

I love using advanced statistics and trying to see what we can learn from them, but the statheads need to realize the limitations of their tools and at least apply a little intellectual honesty so they don’t look like complete idiots.

Is it really news to anyone if you take one derivative statistic, who’s universe of data is a season we went 17-65, and project it forward we’re probably not going to look good?

And no, I’m not wearing rose colored glasses, I can foresee us being a 20 win team and thinking the season was a moderate success under the right circumstances, we’re going to be bad. But this author didn’t convince me of much.

Time is one thing that is a limited resource and one of the few things that we can do nothing to reacquire—and I just wasted far too much of it reading this blog post. There are so many more productive things that I could have done with the time I spent on this—like picking my nose, clipping my toenails, scratching my rear, etc.

Beyond the lost time, I feel like this blogger’s lack of intelligence has infected me as a reader. There are only 3 reasons that seem to explain the terrible nature of this blog post.

1) The author does not understand basketball
2) The author does not possess any sense of logic
3) The author possesses both of the above traits yet chooses not to use them because of a personal agenda—i.e. trying to stir up readers for his blog as a result of a controversial post or a specific dislike for the Sacramento Kings (or their fans).

Statistics are fun. Statistics are great. However, wisdom and logic must be used in their application to life. Let’s be honest, ever since Bill James started coming into prominence in baseball, people have wanted to assign objective, personal win value to players in all sports. I LOVE value statistics in baseball. I am a huge Oakland A’s fan and I follow these statistics on a regular basis. However, there is a fundamental difference between baseball and the other two of the “Big Three” sports. In baseball, the game can be largely brought down to a 1-on-1 matchup—pitcher vs. batter. Football and especially basketball are not like this. There is an organic element in basketball that is not quantifiable in across-the-board statistics. Basketball is not a sport that lends itself to value sums.

Without wasting any more brain cells on the blog post, this whole blog post is bunk. Trash.

can make an argument to favor whatever point it is you are trying to make.

One can also say, that due to the disproportionatley large number of losses we suffered by 3 points or fewer, we will win at least 7-8 games by shear luck alone.

Add a healthy Martin and Tyreke and it conceivable that we win close to 30 games.

Are we a championship caliber team? No, but I don’t think we are the sorst team in the league.

Time will tell.