Where's the Map, Losing has me Disoriented. Year 2

Last summer I wrote a FanPost called Where's the Map, Losing has me Disoriented.  In it I asked and researched three basic questions:

What happens the season after a league worst showing? (It was atypical to be the worst team twice in a row)
Is improvement to be expected, and if so how much?  (Improvement was to be expected, about 9-10 games)
How long will it take to win again? (It takes 4-5 years to win again)

This year I am following up in the same fashion with these three questions:

What typically happens the 2nd season after having the worst record in the NBA?
How much improvement is to be expected?
What did the teams that made the most dramatic improvement from year 1 to year 2 do to improve?

The methods I used to figure out these questions are just an extension of the averaging I used last year.  No fancy stats, just letting the record speak for itself and adding one more year of information to the chart I used last year.

Question #1- What typically happens the 2nd season after having the worst record in the NBA?

The good news is that the second season after a league worst finish continues to show improvement.  The bad news is that on average that improvement is slowed down considerably.

Question #2- How much improvement is to be expected?

There are two ways to look at this, the optimistic way and the pessimistic way.  The pessimistic way of viewing the amount of improvement that can be expected is to just look at the change in record from year 1 to year 2.  The average change in record from year 1 to year 2 after a league worst finish is 5.916 games of improvement which would put the Kings at about 31-51 for the 2010-2011 season.

The optimistic way of viewing the amount of improvement is to look at total improvement since our worst in league starting point.  The average change in record from league worst to year 2 can be figured out by adding 9.375 (average increase from league worst record to year 1) to 5.916 (average increase from year 1 to year 2) to get 15.291 which would put the Kings at about 32-50.

Either way, assuming the Kings are going to have an average climb back to winning we are going to have to remain patient for a few more years.

Question #3- What did the teams that made the most dramatic improvement from year 1 to year 2 do to improve?

To answer this question I looked at my chart and focused on the teams that made a 10 game or better improvement.  Those teams (I will identify them by the league worst year and team name because some of these teams are repeat offenders) were 1984-85 Pacers, 1985-86 Knicks, 1989-90 Nets, 1990-91 Nuggets, 1992-93 Mavericks.

1984-85 Pacers

First and foremost they had a coaching change before year 2 began from George Irving with a career .345 winning percentage to Jack Ramsey a 1992 Hall of Fame inductee.  Secondly, they added Chuck Person (a rookie) and John Long (draft day trade) who became their leading scorers.  Chuck Person also tied for the lead in rebounding.

1985-86 Knicks

The Knicks also made a coaching change before year 2 began.  In year 1 they had Hubie Brown and Bob Hill, but for year 2 they hired Rick Pitino.  Patrick Ewing played all 82 games in year 2 vs just 63 games in year 1.  Added Rookie Mark Jackson who lead team in assists (10.6 per game).  New starter Sidney Green acquired at the beginning of the season for a second round draft pick.

1989-90 Nets

The Nets kept the same coach they had for their league worst season.  They didn't acquire any new starters, however Drazen Petrovic went from bench player to starting all 82 games and leading the team in scoring with the exit of Reggie Theus who had been the Nets' leading scorer the year before.  They drafted Kenny Anderson, who had an unremarkable rookie year.


1990-91 Nuggets

The Nuggets changed coaches from Paul Westhead to Dan Issel.  Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf made the jump from the bench to become the Nuggets leading scorer.  LaPhonso Ellis started all 82 games as a rookie and provided good numbers.  Dikembe Mutombo scored less in year 2 but increased his rebounding, mostly through more defensive rebounding, and increased his blocked shots.  The Nuggets were able to both increase their offensive rating (+3.9) and decrease their defensive rating (-2.3).

1992-93 Mavericks

The Mavericks changed coaches from Quinn Buckner (one and done NBA coaching career) to Dick Motta the franchises first coach, who took a break from Dallas to coach in Sacramento for a few years.  Year 1 for the 1992-93 Mavericks was also the worst record in the league year for the 1993-94 Mavericks, which no doubt made a Year 1 to Year 2 leap look more impressive than it really was.  However, this was the year of the vaunted Tripple J -Jim Jackson, Jamal Mashburn, and Jason Kidd.  Jackson led in scoring (25.7) with Mashburn (24.1) closely on his heals, though Jackson missed 30 games and Mashburn only missed two.  Jason Kidd was in his rookie year and was showing alot of promise as well as good numbers.

Summary of Teams That Made a Large Leap from Year 1 to Year 2

Most of these teams had a coaching change, which no doubt brought in a new philiosophy and helped account for the larger than average growth they exhibited.  Every team except for the Nets had very productive rookies.  The Nets and Nuggets developed players from their own benches.  The Pacers added through trade and the Mavericks developed from the draft.

Besides having new coaches and drafting good players there doesn't seem to be a common thread that links the teams who out performed the average rate of winning.  Luckily, the Kings have a high draft pick (no worse than number 6), some young talent on the bench that might develop into starter material (Greene, Casspi), as well as cap space to play around with.  Maybe we can pick up our rebuild and out perform the average next year and do better than 32-50.  What do you think?

For those who are interested in the chart I used to base my observations on: