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

  • #46
    And I think that the point of Duncan bringing home the title was a fluke, as Robinson was injured that year.
    The name's Bond, James Bond.

    Comment


    • #47
      RaptorsFohEva wrote: View Post
      And I think that the point of Duncan bringing home the title was a fluke, as Robinson was injured that year.
      I think that's part of the point though in the end. If you're going to suck because of an injured star, or retiring star....anything where you lose your foundation....that's acceptable tanking, because you don't really "plan" for it, it just kind of happens.

      Comment


      • #48
        white men can't jump wrote: View Post
        I think that's part of the point though in the end. If you're going to suck because of an injured star, or retiring star....anything where you lose your foundation....that's acceptable tanking, because you don't really "plan" for it, it just kind of happens.
        like if DD and Klow had both had torn ACLs or something and we got Wiggins.

        Injured backcourt comes back and we're roaring to the playoffs.
        The name's Bond, James Bond.

        Comment


        • #49
          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...

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

          Thanks for reviving that link. I remember reading it. I'm going to head over to the FAQ thread and post the link for future discussions of the probability of tanking leading to a championship...or even relevance.

          Comment


          • #50
            Puffer wrote: View Post
            Thanks for reviving that link. I remember reading it. I'm going to head over to the FAQ thread and post the link for future discussions of the probability of tanking leading to a championship...or even relevance.
            The issue with that article is that there is no way to separate intelligent tanking from just sucking as a franchise. Most of the teams in that sample are just terribly mismanaged. Hard to say tanking was the problem when you've got David Kahn making your draft picks. The reality is, bad teams tend to stay bad because of incompetence, not because of strategy.

            The other issue, is the time constraints placed on success. What if a team tanks hard, develops its young players, and ends up "middling" after the time frame specified, but jump up to championship status after that? Then they would be classified as a "treadmill" team that made the jump, rather than a "tanking" team.
            twitter.com/dhackett1565

            Comment


            • #51
              DanH wrote: View Post
              The issue with that article is that there is no way to separate intelligent tanking from just sucking as a franchise. Most of the teams in that sample are just terribly mismanaged. Hard to say tanking was the problem when you've got David Kahn making your draft picks. The reality is, bad teams tend to stay bad because of incompetence, not because of strategy.

              The other issue, is the time constraints placed on success. What if a team tanks hard, develops its young players, and ends up "middling" after the time frame specified, but jump up to championship status after that? Then they would be classified as a "treadmill" team that made the jump, rather than a "tanking" team.
              At the very least, what it's showing is that the top pick isn't a guaranteed ticket to relevance like some might hope.

              The number one pick, even if it works out, is one piece (arguably the hardest to obtain) of a very large puzzle.

              Where the Raptors are right now, we have most of our puzzle in place, with multiple outside shots at getting that one, most coveted, final piece.

              Are the combined odds of:

              1. JV developing into a superstar OR Demar developing into a superstar OR Lowry developing into a superstar OR us signing a superstar, better than the odds of;

              2. a tanking team making the right pick AND developing him the right way AND putting a championship team around him for the right price, doing this all before that top pick leaves?

              The Sixers, who I'd consider are one of the best run tanking teams right now, still have a TON of questions facing them. Is MCW, with little to no outside shot at the age of 23, a possible championship PG? Will Noel be a complete bust? Will they make the right pick this year? Will they be able to resign all these guys when their extensions all come due within a year of each other? Will they be able to add the right coach and veteran players to impose a professional culture within the franchise? Etc.

              So, yeah, teams like the Cavs seriously mismanaged the situation. But what about teams like Denver, that just couldn't quite get it together, or teams like Minnesota, where a projected star falls flat (Rubio), teams like Utah, that just can't quite pull it together (remember DW was considered on par with CP4), teams like NOH (again, similar to Denver, both with CP4 and I predict with AD as well).

              I'd add that a lot of the teams that have done well with their own draft picks - LAL, MIA, BOS, etc. - did so after adding an all-NBA free agent to help out. So maybe Andrew Wiggins helps you get that piece, but that's another big hurdle a tanking team has to clear sometime in the future.
              Last edited by stooley; Fri May 9, 2014, 09:28 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


              • #52
                I remember starting a thread or making a post..... not sure..... anyways.

                Over the last 20 years you had about a 40% chance of getting an All-Star calibre player from the top 5 of the draft. Some years 2, some 3, some 1, 2003 had 4.... but on average it was about 2 out of 5.

                FWIW

                Comment


                • #53
                  stooley wrote: View Post
                  At the very least, what it's showing is that the top pick isn't a guaranteed ticket to relevance like some might hope.

                  The number one pick, even if it works out, is one piece (arguably the hardest to obtain) of a very large puzzle.

                  Where the Raptors are right now, we have most of our puzzle in place, with multiple outside shots at getting that one, most coveted, final piece.

                  Are the combined odds of:

                  1. JV developing into a superstar OR Demar developing into a superstar OR Lowry developing into a superstar OR us signing a superstar, better than the odds of;

                  2. a tanking team making the right pick AND developing him the right way AND putting a championship team around him for the right price, doing this all before that top pick leaves?

                  So, yeah, teams like the Cavs seriously mismanaged the situation. But what about teams like Denver, that just couldn't quite get it together, or teams like Minnesota, where a projected star falls flat (Rubio), teams like Utah, that just can't quite pull it together (remember DW was considered on par with CP4), teams like NOH (again, similar to Denver, both with CP4 and I predict with AD as well).
                  I'm not saying anything is a guarantee. What I'm saying is that the teams you listed should perhaps be the sample size, if you want to judge the action and not the actor. And as such, the numbers in the study are very skewed. Even if the overall trend is negative (say, only 30% of tanking teams achieve success, so maybe it's better to pursue a different path), it still wouldn't paint the "no hope" picture that comes from including the teams that are just awful in general.

                  And frankly, I think the odds of your first scenario are zero aside from us signing a superstar. The odds there are very close to zero. The real path to perhaps getting a superstar on this team is through trade, in which case you lose many of those supplementary pieces in the process. So the equivalence is really:

                  Which odds are better?

                  A) Being able to trade current pieces for a true superstar, then manage rest of assets into championship calibre supporting cast.

                  B) Tanking team makes right pick (among several, tanking is not a one year process, and if done correctly the trade of current assets for picks means multiple shots each year), develops him correctly, then manages rest of assets into championship calibre supporting cast.

                  I don't think the odds of either are wildly different. I think with where we are now, the correct course is probably action A. I think either course would have worked well at the time of the Gay trade, though with the unknowns of the players returned in that trade at the time and the status of Ross, JV, DD and Lowry (all underperforming at the time relative to the season since), tanking was probably the way I would have chosen. And Ujiri too (tried to move Lowry). But as the season progressed, action A became a viable option due to the performance of the team, and no one got moved as a result. Now we'll see where the next 18 months or so takes us.
                  twitter.com/dhackett1565

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    DanH wrote: View Post
                    I'm not saying anything is a guarantee. What I'm saying is that the teams you listed should perhaps be the sample size, if you want to judge the action and not the actor. And as such, the numbers in the study are very skewed. Even if the overall trend is negative (say, only 30% of tanking teams achieve success, so maybe it's better to pursue a different path), it still wouldn't paint the "no hope" picture that comes from including the teams that are just awful in general.

                    And frankly, I think the odds of your first scenario are zero aside from us signing a superstar. The odds there are very close to zero. The real path to perhaps getting a superstar on this team is through trade, in which case you lose many of those supplementary pieces in the process. So the equivalence is really:

                    Which odds are better?

                    A) Being able to trade current pieces for a true superstar, then manage rest of assets into championship calibre supporting cast.

                    B) Tanking team makes right pick (among several, tanking is not a one year process, and if done correctly the trade of current assets for picks means multiple shots each year), develops him correctly, then manages rest of assets into championship calibre supporting cast.

                    I don't think the odds of either are wildly different. I think with where we are now, the correct course is probably action A. I think either course would have worked well at the time of the Gay trade, though with the unknowns of the players returned in that trade at the time and the status of Ross, JV, DD and Lowry (all underperforming at the time relative to the season since), tanking was probably the way I would have chosen. And Ujiri too (tried to move Lowry). But as the season progressed, action A became a viable option due to the performance of the team, and no one got moved as a result. Now we'll see where the next 18 months or so takes us.
                    Yeah sorry, I agreed with your criticisms of the math, I should have mentioned that. Obviously, teams like SAC and PHI should not necessarily be lumped into the same group.

                    I agree with the rest of what you said with the exception of the bold.

                    I think there are some scenarios in which JV learns to play at Marc Gasol's level.

                    And I think there are some scenarios in which Demar learns to dribble and extends his range by a couple feet and learns to pass out of double teams, making him a defenceless Kobe. (aside: like seriously, if Demar passes out of double teams, we play the entire Nets series 4 on 3 and I think we win solidly)

                    And I think I'd extend my range from "superstar" signing to all-star signing. A Guy like Lamarcus Aldridge or Demarcus Cousins (minus the attitude issues) would turn is into a contender if we get them in 2015.
                    Last edited by stooley; Fri May 9, 2014, 09:46 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


                    • #55
                      i just find it hilarious that jamshid still posts here and pretends he knows what hes talking about.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        iblastoff wrote: View Post
                        i just find it hilarious that jamshid still posts here and pretends he knows what hes talking about.
                        Hey, hey now. We embrace people of all stripes here. Even the ones with crazy unreasonable expectations.
                        "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


                        • #57
                          Speaking of SAC and PHI. Is there some way we can separate teams that intentionally tanked, as in, gave away pieces to turn from a half-decent team to a terrible one, and ones that just sucked.

                          I'd argue that the proper measure of tanking should be the success rates among teams that ended up that low intentionally (like PHI), rather than through a series of bad moves (like Milwaukee). I think one is an indication of a plan carried out - successfully or not - while the other is an example of bad management continuing to be bad or getting lucky.

                          This gets a little tricky because: a. noone admits to tanking so its pretty subjective and b. I don't have the fucking time for that.

                          Maybe a team effort can get er done. If we can each figure out for a certain year or two, which teams gave up contributors for future assets and looked like they tanked, we can maybe find a realistic expectation for "tanking teams" rather than just "bad teams".
                          Last edited by stooley; Fri May 9, 2014, 09:58 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


                          • #58
                            stooley wrote: View Post
                            Speaking of SAC and PHI. Is there some way we can separate teams that intentionally tanked, as in, gave away pieces to turn from a half-decent team to a terrible one, and ones that just sucked.

                            I'd argue that the proper measure of tanking should be the success rates among teams that ended up that low intentionally (like PHI), rather than through a series of bad moves (like Milwaukee). I think one is an indication of a plan carried out - successfully or not - while the other is an example of bad management continuing to be bad or getting lucky.

                            This gets a little tricky because: a. noone admits to tanking so its pretty subjective and b. I don't have the fucking time for that.

                            Maybe a team effort can get er done. If we can each figure out for a certain year or two, which teams gave up contributors for future assets and looked like they tanked, we can maybe find a realistic expectation for "tanking teams" rather than just "bad teams".
                            That's definitely a lot of work. I'd probably have been into it in December, but with all that's already happened this year, the discussion (although interesting) doesn't have that immediacy to the Raptors' situation anymore, so I don't think I can muster the effort.

                            I'd suggest you could use previous years' records, but then it gets really muddy where you draw the line, and context (such as injuries, etc) can derail that as well.
                            twitter.com/dhackett1565

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              DanH wrote: View Post
                              That's definitely a lot of work. I'd probably have been into it in December, but with all that's already happened this year, the discussion (although interesting) doesn't have that immediacy to the Raptors' situation anymore, so I don't think I can muster the effort.

                              I'd suggest you could use previous years' records, but then it gets really muddy where you draw the line, and context (such as injuries, etc) can derail that as well.
                              Yeah, I was thinking of something like - gave up at least one starter in exchange for draft picks/cap relief, followed by a decrease in win-total by 10 or 15 or something the next year.
                              "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


                              • #60
                                stooley wrote: View Post
                                I think there are some scenarios in which JV learns to play at Marc Gasol's level.
                                Completely agree. But Marc Gasol is not a superstar.

                                And I think there are some scenarios in which Demar learns to dribble and extends his range by a couple feet and learns to pass out of double teams, making him a defenceless Kobe. (aside: like seriously, if Demar passes out of double teams, we play the entire Nets series 4 on 3 and I think we win solidly)
                                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).

                                And I think I'd extend my range from "superstar" signing to all-star signing. A Guy like Lamarcus Aldridge or Demarcus Cousins (minus the attitude issues) would turn is into a contender if we get them in 2015.
                                And sure, they might be able to land a guy like that (and would be a great move), but they've got ONE shot. After 2015 that cap space goes away, whether they sign a big name or not (JV and Ross get raises, DD undoubtedly opts out to get a bigger deal). Of course, landing a guy like that still puts the team into a non-superstar construction - which is fine, but has only won one team a championship in the history of the NBA, and the Pistons had several all-stars and the DPOY. So in that case, you are probably looking at hoping to land that piece, AND get the best case scenarios for DD, Lowry, JV, Ross, etc in terms of development. And the reality is, this is probably the course of action we are pursuing, so I'll spend my time dreaming of ways it could work out. But objectively speaking, the odds seem just as long as the tanking route's were.
                                twitter.com/dhackett1565

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X