Season is over so the question is here, was it worth it?

[OldSkoolCool]

Definitely worth it.

Demar's value way up.

Jonas/Ross got some playoff experience, and a taste for success (it's addictive).

We have a solid, young core, with a ton of financial flexibility in the foreseeable future and all our draft picks plus one.

AND I HAD A TON OF FUN.

Totally worth it.

This is a nutshell

[Eric Akshinthala]

This is question that can only cause pain. It's the way they went and it was good. Maybe not a future Star but there seems to be promise of play-off appearances in the coming years and that's an encouraging thing.

[Mr.Z]

Definitely worth it. This season was the happiest I've ever been to be a Raptors fan.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

[TSF]

Tanking is only one way to do it. Asset accumulation and maintaining a winning culture is another. Houston hasn't been below .500 since 05-06, despite not having a star since '09, but they continuously accumulated assets, made good draft decisions, and ended up getting two all-nba players. There's value in the Mark Cuban way- if most teams are taking one approach, go the other way to find new opportunities. We now have one of the most intriguing trade packages in the league, a well-put together team, 4 1sts in three years, an all-star, no albatross contracts after the end of next year, and a great culture.

[JawsGT]

Yes, I will say it's worth it, regardless of what happens this offseason. I watched 86 of 89 games the Raps played this season, and was entertained fully as soon as Rudy got punted. The team won more games than it ever has, bred an all-star, got an all-NBA performance out of Lowry, and we got to see some great things out of our sophomores. A 50 point performance out of Ross, plus his highlight reel dunks were icing on the cake. Furthermore, the team improved both on and off the court, and our flexibility and ability to improve going forward was not sacrificed, but actually enhanced with the Bargs and Rudy trades.

Had the Raps played for ping pong balls, I would have maybe watched 10 games. Does that make me a bad fan or a bandwagoner? Perhaps, but I have been watching the Raps since the beginning, and I admit I am more interested when the team is competitive. It's fun to watch a young team learn to play together, but it isn't fun to watch a team get into position to acquire young players via the top of the draft. I'm thankful Ujiri didn't go that route, and now it's time to grow!!

[Niagara Raptor]

i think the losing was grinding down the fan base so it was good to have something positive to cheer for
it would be a gut punch if we seriously regressed but it felt good to know what a good season feels like

[Jamshid]

WAIT 1-2 years when the players from this DRAFT class really start to play well and then we can answer was it worth it ??

Lets see where we are in 2017 in comparison to Milwaukee, Philly, Boston, Utah and ... then we can say was the first round exit and the fun we had worth losing on this draft ... Right now, we just had a great time and it seems like it was worth it

[white men can't jump]

WAIT 1-2 years when the players from this DRAFT class really start to play well and then we can answer was it worth it ??

Lets see where we are in 2017 in comparison to Milwaukee, Philly, Boston, Utah and ... then we can say was the first round exit and the fun we had worth losing on this draft ... Right now, we just had a great time and it seems like it was worth it

That doesn't really change the debate much, because there's no guarantee we could've been as bad as the teams at the top of this draft. It's arguing a total hypothetical scenario against a real one that played out.

That makes it really easy to counter, since you could easily say it's possible the team could've aimed for the top of the lottery by gutting the roster (and likely with less-than-desired return, à la Philly), won around 30 games, and ended up with a pick no higher than 8 or 9...which would've made it completely not worth it.

[Jamshid]

That doesn't really change the debate much, because there's no guarantee we could've been as bad as the teams at the top of this draft. It's arguing a total hypothetical scenario against a real one that played out.

This is why I did not say one specific team just for the reason of uncertainty ... I mentioned few teams and then we can look at them in few years and see where they are ... It is called probability and mathematically it is the MOST logical way of looking at this instead of just saying, yah, it was fun and it was a blast without knowing what we really missed out on.

[white men can't jump]

This is why I did not say one specific team just for the reason of uncertainty ... I mentioned few teams and then we can look at them in few years and see where they are ... It is called probability and mathematically it is the MOST logical way of looking at this instead of just saying, yah, it was fun and it was a blast without knowing what we really missed out on.

The logic is far from perfect. It's not like you can accurately calculate the probabilities of where Toronto could've finished with different scenarios. And the teams you picked are all in the bottom 5. To actually spread it out to account for uncertainty, you'd have to include teams like Minnesota, New Orleans, Denver, Detroit, etc....Basically, how will we stack up against all 14 lottery teams, and at the very least the bottom 10 if we'd hope to avoid the worst middle of the pack situation if Toronto had tanked.

So yeah, that's a pretty impossible discussion to really have, and probably still will be in a couple of years, as there will be teams in the lottery that likely still suck, and some that are good. So people will be like "maybe we could've been A or B and gotten a franchise player", and other could be like "yeah, but we also could've been C or D and gotten nothing special" and there will be no way to know who's more right.

So it doesn't matter what teams below us do, because not all of them will suddenly find amazing roads to being contenders. All that matters is what Toronto does moving forward, and that's not measured against hypothetical hindsight scenarios. It's measured by finding a way within the next 2-3 years (hopefully) to go from competitive playoff team to contender, and thus the real results moving forward.

[Jamshid]

The logic is far from perfect. It's not like you can accurately calculate the probabilities of where Toronto could've finished with different scenarios. .

LOOOOL, Dude, obviously you don't have the basic grasp on topics like probability, risk assessment, cost / benefit and ... OR I am doing an awful job of explaining to you here right now.

Either way, it does not mater because I don't have the time and energy to explain these easy concepts to you here right now.
So to end this:

You are right This was awesome and it was fun and it was totally worth it and we did not and will not loss anything now or in near future for this run and it was just 100% beneficial to our team and future of this franchize.

Lets Go Raptors

[white men can't jump]

LOOOOL, Dude, obviously you don't have the basic grasp on topics like probability, risk assessment, cost / benefit and ... OR I am doing an awful job of explaining to you here right now.

Either way, it does not mater because I don't have the time and energy to explain these easy concepts to you here right now.
So to end this:

You are right This was awesome and it was fun and it was totally worth it and we did not and will not loss anything now or in near future for this run and it was just 100% beneficial to our team and future of this franchize.

Lets Go Raptors

Actually, I think it's the other way around man, sorry. Your idea of risk assessment in this scenario is fairly simplistic, and your consideration of probabilities as well. Sorry. When considering the cost/benefit of this year, and the risks in trying for a tank, you have to consider ALL possible scenarios if the Raps finished in ANY (and different probabilities) of the lottery spots. You can't just compare it against the teams that end up with favorable outcomes in 2-3 years. Nor can you just compare it to teams that end up with unfavorable outcomes.

And I didn't say it was 100% beneficial to the future of the team. Stop being so condescending. There's nothing about what you're saying that is insightful, or rational, or mathematical......

[golden]

This is why I did not say one specific team just for the reason of uncertainty ... I mentioned few teams and then we can look at them in few years and see where they are ... It is called probability and mathematically it is the MOST logical way of looking at this instead of just saying, yah, it was fun and it was a blast without knowing what we really missed out on.

Actually, speaking of probability and mathematical analysis: this excellent article shows that losing teams have a much lower probability of becoming great teams in the future, in comparison to teams on the so-called 'mediocrity treadmill'.

We can argue the definitions of losing, mediocre and great, but the data itself is eye-opening...

http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/29/l...gy-in-the-nba/

The NBA season is beginning this week and fans of each team are, of course, optimistic. At this point, everyone can hope a title is possible come next summer.

Although everyone could theoretically have dreams of a title in 2014, it is clear that every NBA fan isn’t actually hoping their team is successful in 2014. Some NBA fans are actually dreaming of an event that happens just after the conclusion of the NBA Finals. For fans of a few teams, the focus is already on the 2014 draft. For example, some fans of the Philadelphia 76ers seem convinced that not only are the Sixers not trying to win this year, but that this is actually the best course of action for this franchise.

Proponents of “tanking” dream of such number one picks as Shaquille O’Neal or LeBron James. Each of these players were selected number one and went on to win multiple NBA titles. Of course, other number one picks – like Yao Ming, Michael Olowokandi, Allen Iverson, Joe Smith, Glenn Robinson, Chris Webber, Larry Johnson, etc. – played their entire careers and never won an NBA title.

Despite this list, fans of the NBA’s losers still have dreams that success in the NBA lottery will lead to title contention and an NBA championship in the future. But is this likely to happen? About a year ago, I offered the concept of the “lottery treadmill” in an effort to understand how title contenders are built. Now I want to address what happens to teams that are not contenders.

Or more specifically: if a team wins 25 or fewer games – a result needed to maximize success in the lottery – what happens in future NBA seasons?

Before answering this question, let’s make an observation. Since 1985, only two teams (the Miami Heat in 2006 and the Houston Rockets in 1995) have managed to win an NBA title without winning at least 66 percent (54 wins in an 82-game season) of their games. And since 1984-85, about 20 percent of teams have won 54 or more games. So it seems likely that a team needs to be in this group to really be considered a contender.

But it appears that teams that win 25 or fewer games have a hard time joining this elite. Of the teams that won 25 or fewer games since 1984-85,

2.3 percent won 54 or more games the next year
3.9 percent won 54 or more games two years later
5.7 percent won 54 or more games three years later
10.1 percent won 54 or more games four years later
10.6 percent won 54 or more games five years later

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.

Of course, some may say that this is still better than just being “mediocre” in the NBA. Back in 2011, three different NBA executives made a similar observation:

Towards the close of yesterday’s basketball analytics panel, Mark Cuban (owner of the Dallas Mavericks) and Kevin Pritchard (general manager of the Portland Trail Blazers) showed their cards in terms of fast-tracking a franchise rebuilding project.

Cuban confessed that once Dirk Nowitzki retires he expects the Mavericks to lose, and, if he gets his way, they’ll lose badly. Kevin Pritchard seemed to agree and introduced a new term into our lexicons: “the mediocrity treadmill.”

There is no championship future for a middling team that is stuck in the embattled space between those who struggle to make the playoffs and those that struggle and miss. Cuban has no desire for the Mavericks to be such a team. Charlotte Bobcats owner Michael Jordan recently defended trading Gerald Wallace to the Portland Trailblazers by saying, “We don’t want to be the seventh or eighth seed.” The Bobcats have been, at best, mediocre, and so perhaps we can interpret his statement as one owner casting his philosophical lot with Cuban and Pritchard.

So are teams better off avoiding the “mediocrity treadmill”? Let’s define a mediocre team as one that wins between 34 and 49 wins. Of the teams in this group,

9.1 percent won 54 or more games the next year
13.9 percent won 54 or more games two years later
14.8 percent won 54 or more games three years later
16.5 percent won 54 or more games four years later
19.8 percent won 54 or more game five years later

In sum, a team that is mediocre is much more likely to contend in the near future than a loser. And that means if your team is actually trying to build a loser (i.e. avoid the mediocrity treadmill), they are reducing their chances to contend.
Now some might argue that this next draft is different. This next draft is supposed to have such players as Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parker, and Julius Randle. Each of these players are supposed to be stars. Of course, such players have only “starred” so far in high school. So it is possible that these players will not excel in college or the NBA.

But let’s imagine these players are like LeBron. It is important to remember that LeBron never won a title with the teams that acquired his services on draft night. In fact, in the lottery era (since 1985) only the San Antonio Spurs (with David Robinson and Tim Duncan) have drafted a player number one and won a title with that player. Every other number one pick failed to bring a title to the team that “won” the lottery.

So we see that the NBA draft lottery is quite similar to the state lotteries so many people play. Winners of these lotteries often don’t get the life of their dreams. And the odds of winning are so poor that state lotteries are often described as a tax on the mathematically illiterate. Despite all this, people still buy lottery tickets in the hopes of realizing their dreams. And likewise, some people in the NBA have dreams that winning the NBA lottery is the path to a future NBA title.
But it is important to remember as fans that these are often just dreams.

Losing is not a winning strategy in the NBA. And if you see your team lose frequently this next season, you shouldn’t think that unhappiness experienced today is likely to lead to much happiness in the future.

[007]

Actually, speaking of probability and mathematical analysis: this excellent article shows that losing teams have a much lower probability of becoming great teams in the future, in comparison to teams on the so-called 'mediocrity treadmill'.

We can argue the definitions of losing, mediocre and great, but the data itself is eye-opening...

http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/29/l...gy-in-the-nba/

Thank you. Nice to see a good piece with actual statistics bashing tanking.

[white men can't jump]

Actually, speaking of probability and mathematical analysis: this excellent article shows that losing teams have a much lower probability of becoming great teams in the future, in comparison to teams on the so-called 'mediocrity treadmill'.

We can argue the definitions of losing, mediocre and great, but the data itself is eye-opening...

http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/29/l...gy-in-the-nba/

Nice article. Would seem to make sense, since if you're losing a lot, even if you get lucky and draft a franchise calibre talent, you still have to build a team and system around that player. It is essentially very difficult to turn failure into success, and that's why I always thought "tanking" is something you kind of have to fall ass-backwards into, so-called "organic" tanking where your team is just being rebuilt because it has to be, or you come out flat and embrace sucking for the year (often because of injuries).