Again, I think a guy like that could be sufficient to build a contender around, so long as the rest of the team is also well constructed.
Aside: Harden is on a different level on defence than Demar lol. If you watch Harden, he literally doesn't even care if his man scores. He's not even trying lol.
But whatever, we're nitpicking. I guess I'm saying that this core, minus the bad contracts, has a half decent shot at being a contender in a couple of years. It's not guaranteed, but it's not SUCH a long shot either. Which, I guess is what you're saying too. Hmm.
I think this is an almost comically flawed statement, because it makes no allowance for the fact that some franchises are simply chronically mismanaged, and would be awful no matter what strategy they were using. Tanking for picks is only one of the steps in a long process; if a franchise is bad because it bungs up any or all of the other steps, it doesn't make sense to them blame their lack of success on tanking.In sum, nearly 90 percent of teams that win 25 or fewer games are not contenders five years later. This suggests that “tanking” is a strategy that is very unlikely to lead to NBA success.
For instance, what if a team is tanking, but it has awful talent evaluators? It doesn't matter if you're in the lottery if the people making the draft decisions can't do their jobs.
In this article, Berri makes no attempt to sort out which franchises were consistently bad at all levels (trades, draft success, free agents signings, etc.), so I don't find any value in the numbers he's giving that supposedly show that tanking itself is bad.
But I guess the idea that it presents is, like I said before, that rising from tanking team to contender involves a LOT of steps. And each of those steps presents another opportunity to make a mistake. A couple of mistakes, or one single costly mistakes, can derail a plan that was years in the making.
Every front office seems pretty good until they make those mistakes. Cleveland made a great choice with Kyrie, but then bungled a bunch of picks afterwards. You don't know whether your front office is good or not until they've either succeeded or blown it.
And obviously, it's easy to pick out the front offices that are comically bad, but there are a lot that may just be unlucky, and come off as being bad. And the "good" FOs probably benefit from having some luck on their side. So it is definitely a tough mess to untangle.
So to further this, I think it's hard to say whether it's "easier" for an average front office to succeed from a tanking position, or from a semi-built position like the Raps are in right now.
I think one effective way to sort it out might be to try and figure out what the correlation is between being in the bottom and having a bad front office, and then comparing that to the rate of "bad" FOs in the rest of the league, or the league as a whole.
Now I have no idea how to do that, or if it's even possible so that sucks. I'd say though that either route is valid, and the one more likely to lead a team to success is highly dependent on what is going on in the rest of the league, and where a team presently stands.
I think the one general rule to building a successful team is finding the flaws in the market, and abusing those until the rest of the league catches on.
The moves to tank this year had to come before everyone else was doing it, I think.
Last edited by stooley; Fri May 9th, 2014 at 09:59 AM.
Could we look at bad teams that replaced their GM within one year, on either end, of being bad?
That probably isolates the effect of having a good shot in the lottery from the mismanagement that led there, but the sample size is probably too small.
That probably isn't true.... but at least it's a little closer... but then again, the small sample size probably makes the results less accurate.
DeRozan's number one strength listed on his draftexpress profile when he was drafted was his mid-range game. His shooting was supposed to be his strength. His FG% from 10-16 feet and 16+ feet (not 3 pointers) has been in his career:Well, I don't think it's THAT unlikely! He's developed a pretty good jump shot since having no idea how to shoot when he came into the league, all he has to do is extend his range a couple more feet. And the whole passing thing should come with experience.
2010: .465, .356
2011: .453, .392
2012: .407, .343
2013: .391, .414
2014: .395, .395
I see no significant improvement in his shooting. Perhaps he's gotten better at physically shooting the ball and just shoots worse shots (more covered?), but either way, his production in terms of ability to get the ball into the hoop appears to be getting worse, not better over time on jump shots.
Passing he made a huge improvement in this year. That's the one part of his game that I was happy with this year. He's still a long way off though (his huge career year of 18.9 AST% would rank as Kobe's 4th worst of 18 seasons - and the 3 seasons where he was worse he was 18, 19 and 20 years old - and will need to increase by another 30% year over year to reach Kobe's career average). Meanwhile, his usage is already almost at Kobe's career average levels, so he's getting just as much opportunity to generate those assists.
I don't think Demar has necessarily become a less effective shooter, because of the high usage in recent years. He's unlikely to improve his shooting at this point either. The big improvements this year were assists, defense and getting to the line. I don't think those are going to suddenly regress back to how he was.
If you can get Jonas, Lowry and Demar all playing at all-star levels game in and game out, I think you can be a contender without a superstar. That's essentially what the Spurs are at this point.
I can't see the East remaining this bad in the coming seasons, so our record which was inflated should come down a bit. We won't be a 3rd seed with the same roster next season.
But they do not need to make a significant move. They don't need to move in a linear trajectory of improvement, and make risky compromising deals to do so. It's fine sticking with this group for another year, possibly even two. Try to fill holes without trading away core pieces, or significantly compromising future flexibility and draft assets. If this team stays a 3-6 playoff team for a year or two, while maintaining flexibility and ways to improve, that's not bad at all. Though the onus is on Masai to at some point within the next couple of years to find a move that can push them above that level.
But it is not "oh man, we won 48 games, I have to do everything I can to make sure we win 50 next year", to me it's "hmmm, we won 48 games, this team is not bad and I have to play my cards right to turn it into a 50+ win team for years"...Put it another way, I'd rather Masai makes the right move, even if it means 2 more years of 45 wins (give or take) if it then means 3-4 years of 50+ wins and being a contender, rather than make a rushed move, turn us into a 50+ win team for one or two years, then we start falling off. If he can find the former move this summer, that's great, but if not, I'd rather he keeps managing from a position of strength.
what about the teams that had between 26 and 33 wins?
Do they just not exist in history or what is the deal? I feel like that is an important range as the teams in 5th - 8th spot have ended up with the number 1 overall pick on more than a few occasions
Draft smart and bring in a couple of guys.
I would even go as far as arguing that we will stick around the 45-50 win range for a couple of seasons regardless if we keep this core together or if we trade production for potential (by which I mean a DD for Wiggins trade or something of that ilk).
But the question to Masai is: What plan do you put in place to give us the best chance of being a sustainable 50+ win team starting in either the 2015/2016 season or the 2016/2014?
You mention the term 'superstar' a lot, but there are a lot of flaws in the definition of 'superstar', in itself. Is James Harden a superstar? Dwight Howard? Carmelo Anthony? Deron Williams (3 years ago?). Is a superstar defined after the fact team winning or putting up great numbers on a losing team? Or is it both? And does winning mean you've got to win the whole thing?
If the definition is 'stats' only, even then, what's the criteria: offensive, defensive?
fwiw - Demar's mid range efficiency (non paint, non threes) was 40.2% this year according to:
not 39.5%, but DanH's point stands
2013-2014: 40.2% USG: 28.0 %of shots from midrange: 52.9
2012-2013: 40.5% USG: 24.2 %of shots from midrange: 53.7
2011-2012: 36.7% USG: 25.0 %of shots from midrange: 50.9
2010-2011: 41.5% USG: 23.2 %of shots from midrange: 47.6
I must say, I'm somewhat surprised by the lack of progression. Although the results in year 2, and the increasing USG rates do suggest that he's upped his game a little to cope with taking more shots.
Last edited by stooley; Fri May 9th, 2014 at 01:08 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)