Does Anybody Else Find This Type Of Attitude In A Fan Tasteless?

[vinnie_paz]

Like I said you are hitting the small nails or thumbtacks and avoiding the big picture.

Everyone has their own approach to evaluating someone's performance.

Basically with me when it comes to coaches and GMs I look at the team's won-loss record and playoff performances and leave the small stuff to them to figure out how to get the best results.

I didn't follow the Raptors very closely before 09-10 so I can't really address how BC did via expectations. However, it is clear based upon the two Raptors playoff appearances and won loss record over the last four seasons that he has done better than any previous GM/Pres for the Raptors over the last 10 seasons.

Now the question is. Is this good bad or in between?

The answer depends on what yardstick you are measuring him by.

If you use the yardstick that he is a bad or less than acceptable GM if the team does not improve its win count each season and improve their playoff record each season then one could argue that he has been a bad GM/President. Of course that would mean a GM like Ainge is bad because the Celtics have not improved each of the last two seasons.

My yardstick is based upon the league as a whole. BC is probably somewhere in the middle of the pack among NBA GMs since he signed on in 2006. The Raptors have been cumulatively basically a just under .500 team and made the playoffs in two of those four years. I would venture to say that not more than half of all GMs over that period have a better record. If you interject the EC vs WC argument again you are talking about the details.

Toronto is not in the WC so the Raptors don't have to measure their success as a team against the WC unless they get into the Finals. Yes it is fun to argue it, but BC does not get paid to finish with a better record than WC teams. He gets paid to beat the EC teams and get the Raptors to the Finals. Only then can you measure him against WC teams.

So to me his performance while GM/Pres of the Raptors has been about average by league standards up to this point.

As far as Triano goes. Obviously based upon won loss record and playoff appearances or lack there of I would rank him slightly below average so far.

That is how I see it.

who said anything about improving each year ??... or your whole "yardstick" measurement ??... i actually said you DONT LOOK AT THE PREVIOUS YEARS... so your celtics reference is just proving your own theory wrong...

i said look at each move and ask yourself is this a gm that is just trying to stay above water or get the team to the nba finals.


a sign a gm is not interested in going deep in the playoffs is when the team is not in contention and he trades 1st round picks for mediocre talent (j.o., marion) just to try to hope for a miracle...

if you're not a playoff team then why are you trading your 1st round picks ? the only time a team should trade their 1st round picks is if they think adding that player will put them over the top in tha playoffs... (detroit pistions acquiring rasheed wallace in 2004)

[Buddahfan]

who said anything about improving each year ??... or your whole "yardstick" measurement ??... i actually said you DONT LOOK AT THE PREVIOUS YEARS... so your celtics reference is just proving your own theory wrong...

i said look at each move and ask yourself is this a gm that is just trying to stay above water or get the team to the nba finals.


a sign a gm is not interested in going deep in the playoffs is when the team is not in contention and he trades 1st round picks for mediocre talent (j.o., marion) just to try to hope for a miracle...

if you're not a playoff team then why are you trading your 1st round picks ? the only time a team should trade their 1st round picks is if they think adding that player will put them over the top in tha playoffs... (detroit pistions acquiring rasheed wallace in 2004)

I told you I don't look at each move in judging a GM or coach.

As long as they are not breaking the law or hurting someone else to me analyzing the individual moves is meaningless. To you it obviously is not.

Each to their own

#Pause

[vinnie_paz]

I told you I don't look at each move in judging a GM or coach.

As long as they are not breaking the law or hurting someone else to me analyzing the individual moves is meaningless. To you it obviously is not.

Each to their own

#Pause

but you just said you cant use previous years history either... like the celtics reference you made...

[vinnie_paz]

As long as they are not breaking the law or hurting someone else to me analyzing the individual moves is meaningless. To you it obviously is not.

well then its very hard to have a conversation with you because its not very common for a gm to hurt someone or break the law... why analyze anything then ??

why join a forum ?

[vinnie_paz]

so if BC trades every 1st round pick for the next 5 years for michael beasely and darko milicic..

to you that move is not worthy of some analysis because he is not hurting anyone or breaking the law ?

[vinnie_paz]

Like I said you are hitting the small nails or thumbtacks and avoiding the big picture.

I didn't follow the Raptors very closely before 09-10 so I can't really address how BC did via expectations. However, it is clear based upon the two Raptors playoff appearances and won loss record over the last four seasons that he has done better than any previous GM/Pres for the Raptors over the last 10 seasons.

umm you just said you didnt follow the raptors closely before 09-10 but then you later go on to say that it is clear that BC has done better than any previous GM in over the last 10 seasons...

based on what ? your wkipedia knowldge ? did you watch all of the games from 2000 till now ?

and actually in 2001 the raps made the 2nd round and went to a game 7... 2001 was in the last 10 years right ?

[Buddahfan]

When it comes to GMs I use only two yardsticks. Teams playoff appearances and Finals rings relative to other GMs to judge them. If a GM does at least as well as half the other GMs in those two categories he is average. Above that he is above average and below that he is below average

Coach - I judge them based upon the same criteria along with wins and losses.

Players - I use basically two criteria to judge how a good a player is in a given season. Ws/48 and minutes played. Again WS/48 carriers by far the most weight and total minutes played which adds to or subtracts somewhat to a players WS/48 provided that the player plays at least 1,000 minutes in a season.

When I am looking at judging someone over their career I add in total career minutes to the mix. To say that someone was a great player for his career I want to see
1. A WS/48 of equal to or greater than .175
2. Career minutes of equal to greater than 20,000
3. A number of playoff victories and NBA Finals rings.

#1 carries the most weight with #2 the next and #3 the least of the three.

All career numbers

1. WS/48 - Over .175 is HOF stuff. Between .150 - .175 is very good .10 - .15 is good. .10 is the league average. Below .10 is not good and the lower the worse


If you look at the following link it lists all NBA players in the history of the league with a career WS/48 of .175 or greater and over 20,000 career minutes.

There are 37 on the list and most if not all of them are considered among the NBA top 100 players of all time if not the top 50.

My experience is that while WS/48 is not a 100% accurate measurement of how good a player is, it is very very good and by far the most accurate assessor out there of how good a player is. When you add in longevity in the form of minutes and the number of playoff wins and NBA Finals rings then it becomes very hard to argue with.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...r_by=ws_per_48

[vinnie_paz]

When it comes to GMs I use only two yardsticks. Teams playoff appearances and Finals rings relative to other GMs to judge them. If a GM does at least as well as half the other GMs in those two categories he is average. Above that he is above average and below that he is below average

Coach - I judge them based upon the same criteria along with wins and losses.

Players - I use basically two criteria to judge how a good a player is in a given season. Ws/48 and minutes played. Again WS/48 carriers by far the most weight and total minutes played which adds to or subtracts somewhat to a players WS/48 provided that the player plays at least 1,000 minutes in a season.

When I am looking at judging someone over their career I add in total career minutes to the mix. To say that someone was a great player for his career I want to see
1. A WS/48 of equal to or greater than .175
2. Career minutes of equal to greater than 20,000
3. A number of playoff victories and NBA Finals rings.

#1 carries the most weight with #2 the next and #3 the least of the three.

All career numbers

1. WS/48 - Over .175 is HOF stuff. Between .150 - .175 is very good .10 - .15 is good. .10 is the league average. Below .10 is not good and the lower the worse


If you look at the following link it lists all NBA players in the history of the league with a career WS/48 of .175 or greater and over 20,000 career minutes.

There are 37 on the list and most if not all of them are considered among the NBA top 100 players of all time if not the top 50.

My experience is that while WS/48 is not a 100% accurate measurement of how good a player is, it is very very good and by far the most accurate assessor out there of how good a player is. When you add in longevity in the form of minutes and the number of playoff wins and NBA Finals rings then it becomes very hard to argue with.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...r_by=ws_per_48

ok that doesnt answer any real questions does it ?

you said you measure gm's by "Teams playoff appearances and Finals rings relative to other GMs to judge them. If a GM does at least as well as half the other GMs in those two categories he is average. Above that he is above average and below that he is below average"

ok so how do you know if he doing as well as half the gm's in the league ?

so pretty much what you're saying is you compare him to all of the other gm's in the league right ?

wel what are you comparing ?? you said you dont like individual moves.. so what then are you using to measure one gm to another ?

[vinnie_paz]

see the problem with using wins n losses is what if a gm has to go in salary shred mode.... does a great job clearing salary (donnie walsh nyk) but the team loses a lot of games... is that gm not good in your opinion b/c of his win loss record ?

what if you find out your star is not going to re-sign so you trade him and some of the other good players from draft picks and prospects... now for a year or 2 your win loss will be very bad as you are rebuilding (sam presti - okc) so if you use the years that that gm is rebuilding, then that isnt fair is it ?

how can you judge a gm based on the other gm's when every gm has a different situation and a different owner who is deciding how much money to spend... a gm with a stingy owner cant be held to the same standard as the knicks or lakers can he ?


that's why for the most part, individual moves, direction, signing players that will help your young players is the best method of measuring a gm's talent.

[vinnie_paz]

When it comes to GMs I use only two yardsticks. Teams playoff appearances and Finals rings relative to other GMs to judge them. If a GM does at least as well as half the other GMs in those two categories he is average. Above that he is above average and below that he is below average

well what are you using to say he is average ? his height ? his hair color ? the color of his suit ? what are you using ?

[Buddahfan]

ok that doesnt answer any real questions does it ?

you said you measure gm's by "Teams playoff appearances and Finals rings relative to other GMs to judge them. If a GM does at least as well as half the other GMs in those two categories he is average. Above that he is above average and below that he is below average"

ok so how do you know if he doing as well as half the gm's in the league ?

so pretty much what you're saying is you compare him to all of the other gm's in the league right ?

wel what are you comparing ?? you said you dont like individual moves.. so what then are you using to measure one gm to another ?

I have already explained it.

I can't explain it any clearer than I have already.

I am not going back and re-explaining my position since I have made it as clear as I can.

If you don't understand it then try rereading it or maybe I can not communicate my ideas in a way that you understand. Fair enough No one is at fault. It is just a communication problem.

In any case I am done with this and it is time to move on.

#Stop

[vinnie_paz]

yea but you just said you compare him to other gm's and i am simply asking ok well what are you comparing ?

[vinnie_paz]

im just trying to point out that one of us is arbitrarily saying "yea that gm is average, that gm is below average, and so on"

and the other is measuring how each move impacts the team now and 2-3 years from now...

what are you using to say bc is average and the gm of (insert random team) is not ?

is he better b/c his win loss record is better than that of the sacramento kings ?

its ok dont answer.... cuz i dont think you yourself know...

[vinnie_paz]

You pretty much nailed it

Nope, but he did hit the little nails and totally missed the big ones

1. BC was named NBA executive of the year with the Raptors
2. The Raptors have made the playoffs in 2 of his 4 full seasons and missed by one game in one other. Compare this to the Raptors in the four years prior to BC when the Raptors never made the playoffs once. Since he didn't sign until the spring of 06, 05-06 goes to his predecessor.
3. The Raptors in his 4 full seasons as GM/Pres have a cum won lost record of minus 6. In the prior four seasons it was minus 94.

So quite obviously the Raptors have been a lot better team during his tenor than they were before.

I think why a lot of Raptor fans attack him is because the Raptors were so successful on a historical basis in 2006-07 his first full season, so they

1. Expected the Raptors to continue to improve after that but the Raptors have not
2. Give the credit to the Raptors success in 2006-07 to his predecessor.
3. Have become disenchanted with the Bargnani pick at #1 because so far he has not worked out like you would expect a #1 pick to work out.

little nails ? missed the big ones ?? umm if you are going to respond to a post and say someone missed something, why dont you just say what it is and instead of saying "he missed the big ones" and then you dont even explain what i missed...

by the way i forgot to add BC gave a contract extension to smith, and then fired him not even a year later...

wonder why bosh left for the heat ? umm i dont know maybe because if you are a player who wants to win you dont want to be coached by some rookie like triano...

hmmm with the money wasted on smitch, could we not have gone after a real proven coach ?