Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    stooley wrote: View Post
    Hey, hey now. We embrace people of all stripes here. Even the ones with crazy unreasonable expectations.
    Especially the ones with crazy unreasonable expectations, really.
    twitter.com/dhackett1565

    Comment


    • #62
      iblastoff wrote: View Post
      i just find it hilarious that jamshid still posts here and pretends he knows what hes talking about.
      Hey! Jamshidisawesome. Keep'emcoming!
      If we knew half as much about coaching an NBA team as we think, we"d know twice as much as we do.

      Comment


      • #63
        DanH wrote: View Post
        Completely agree. But Marc Gasol is not a superstar.
        I do think he's good enough to build a contender around though.


        DanH wrote: View Post
        I think there are some scenarios wherein I stumble upon a winning lottery ticket on the sidewalk and never have to work another day in my life, but I won't hold my breath. I think DD reaching Kobe's level of effectiveness offensively is a pipedream and certainly a best case scenario. And his defense will forever hold him back from being a superstar, unless he actually reaches that level of offensive effectiveness (and possibly even then, depending on whether, for example, you consider Harden a superstar).
        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.

        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.
        "Bruno?
        Heh, if he is in the D-league still in a few years I will be surprised.
        He's terrible."

        -Superjudge, 7/23

        Hope you're wrong.

        Comment


        • #64
          golden wrote: View Post
          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...
          From the article:

          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.
          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.

          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.
          "Stop eating your sushi."
          "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
          "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
          - Jack Armstrong

          Comment


          • #65
            JimiCliff wrote: View Post
            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.

            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.
            Well, the article is flawed as has been pointed out.

            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 9, 2014, 10:59 AM.
            "Bruno?
            Heh, if he is in the D-league still in a few years I will be surprised.
            He's terrible."

            -Superjudge, 7/23

            Hope you're wrong.

            Comment


            • #66
              stooley wrote: View Post
              Hey, hey now. We embrace people of all stripes here. Even the ones with crazy unreasonable expectations.
              cough cough tenforthewin cough cough.
              The name's Bond, James Bond.

              Comment


              • #67
                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.
                "Bruno?
                Heh, if he is in the D-league still in a few years I will be surprised.
                He's terrible."

                -Superjudge, 7/23

                Hope you're wrong.

                Comment


                • #68
                  stooley wrote: View Post
                  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.
                  Sure, but then you have issues such as bad ownership (see: the OTPP for the last decade of Raptors futility, the Bucks' owner) influencing continued hiring of bad management (or even influencing supposedly good management to think short term or chase the playoffs).
                  twitter.com/dhackett1565

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    DanH wrote: View Post
                    Sure, but then you have issues such as bad ownership (see: the OTPP for the last decade of Raptors futility, the Bucks' owner) influencing continued hiring of bad management (or even influencing supposedly good management to think short term or chase the playoffs).
                    Right, but could we assume that bad owners aren't over represented in lottery teams? So that their effect is equivalent to owners' effects in the rest of the league?

                    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.
                    "Bruno?
                    Heh, if he is in the D-league still in a few years I will be surprised.
                    He's terrible."

                    -Superjudge, 7/23

                    Hope you're wrong.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      stooley wrote: View Post
                      I do think he's good enough to build a contender around though.
                      Marc Gasol as the best player on your team? No, that's the Grizzlies now, and they are not a contender.

                      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.
                      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:

                      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.
                      twitter.com/dhackett1565

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        DanH wrote: View Post
                        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:

                        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.
                        Well shit. Good points.
                        "Bruno?
                        Heh, if he is in the D-league still in a few years I will be surprised.
                        He's terrible."

                        -Superjudge, 7/23

                        Hope you're wrong.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          DanH wrote: View Post
                          Marc Gasol as the best player on your team? No, that's the Grizzlies now, and they are not a contender.
                          I think the Grizzlies are a contender. They aren't really the 7th best team in the West, and they basically played OKC, who is a real contender, to a draw in games they were at full strength. I'd put them as the 5th best team in the league at the moment, which could win a championship with the amount of parity we have now. I'd say they're about as good as the 2011 Mavs and the 2006 Heat.

                          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.
                          That is a normal collar. Move on, find a new slant.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            RaptorsFan4Life wrote: View Post
                            I was a huge proponent of the tank until it was obvious tanking wasn't going to work considering how deep the top 5 to top 10 of this draft is. Do you guys think losing out on arguably the best draft since 2003 was worth not tanking and going 1 and done in the playoffs?
                            The answer for me anyways comes down to what happens this off season. If we can improve the roster then it was totally worth it to not have tanked. If no significant moves are made then really what was the point...to make it into the playoffs and be out the first round and likely next season as well? The cost of retaining Lowry will mean over paying him. He played his cards really well this season by having a great year, and never committing himself in any way to Toronto. He will get higher than market value I think.

                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              DanH wrote: View Post
                              Marc Gasol as the best player on your team? No, that's the Grizzlies now, and they are not a contender.



                              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:

                              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.
                              Too bad you can't like on phone.

                              But that is some sad truth. Demar has improved but he's not Kobe.

                              I've resigned myself to him staying a raptor but facts like this hurt.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Mediumcore wrote: View Post
                                The answer for me anyways comes down to what happens this off season. If we can improve the roster then it was totally worth it to not have tanked. If no significant moves are made then really what was the point...to make it into the playoffs and be out the first round and likely next season as well? The cost of retaining Lowry will mean over paying him. He played his cards really well this season by having a great year, and never committing himself in any way to Toronto. He will get higher than market value I think.

                                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.
                                I somewhat agree in the sense that the offseason matters a lot. They need to re-sign Lowry if they can at a fair deal. If they lose him this season was a bit of a waste. And I don't know that they need to really overpay him, but we'll see what the number is when he signs a new deal.

                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X