Are we really tanking now ?

[Jamshid]

You can't be serious..

Yes, in terms of play off performance ...

[Jamshid]

NY went down too. Are you a believer now ??

[blackjitsu]

Someone mentioned this article on Fan 590 when talking about the Raps -- Reading it, it's really flawed. Can one of the hardcore numbers people on this site dive into the numbers a bit deeper? It would be interesting to add statistics to this debate.

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.

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

[psrs1]

If this is what he is planing that he is doing really bad job. This team is wining and will win more if no changes are made. Trading one of these guys: Lowry, DD and Amir will end these wins. However, the more MU waits, the more wins these guys will have and the less lottery balls we will have in the next draft. It is as simple as this.

I know we all decided to give MU time to evaluate this team at the beginning of this season which was quite fair. However, time has ran out on the man and he needs to make his moves NOW and choose a side. Are you tanking? Are you going to seriously compete? Either of these roads require us to make some serious moves.

Sitting Ideal at this crutial time is sign a weakness and confusion and lack of direction.

Lottery balls -- therein lies the potential flaw of tanking

[KHD]

Someone mentioned this article on Fan 590 when talking about the Raps -- Reading it, it's really flawed. Can one of the hardcore numbers people on this site dive into the numbers a bit deeper? It would be interesting to add statistics to this debate.



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

Well, only one team can win the lottery in a given year, and not every draft pick will pan out. Obviously if you tank and either don't get that one guy in the draft, you've gained nothing.

Also, being at 34-49 wins is not indicative of mediocrity if the team has already torn-down and rebuilt around young, high upside prospects, which the article doesn't distinguish. As well, the difference between 49 and 54 wins is probably a bit flukey, so that's another confounder I guess.

[blackjitsu]

Well, only one team can win the lottery in a given year, and not every draft pick will pan out. Obviously if you tank and either don't get that one guy in the draft, you've gained nothing.

Also, being at 34-49 wins is not indicative of mediocrity if the team has already torn-down and rebuilt around young, high upside prospects, which the article doesn't distinguish. As well, the difference between 49 and 54 wins is probably a bit flukey, so that's another confounder I guess.

So to put the numbers in proper context you would have to delve into the stage of the rebuild that each team is in? would you also have to include draft odds and results?

[blackjitsu]

What's flawed about it?

Anyway, the Raps are losing the race to the bottom.

Sorry, missed your comment. The comment section goes through a bunch of issues -- KHD also makes a very legit point.

[KHD]

So to put the numbers in proper context you would have to delve into the stage of the rebuild that each team is in? would you also have to include draft odds and results?

Yeah, maybe. Problem is that there's not really enough of a sample size to do that.

My point is just that it's not valid to say "only 10% of teams in the <25 win range are 55 win teams in 5 years" as an anti-tank argument, because its not so simple.

[blackjitsu]

"if the team has already torn-down and rebuilt around young, high upside prospects" and "stages" of a rebuild are too fuzzy. What is a high-upside prospect? Who knows, who cares? Most of them turn into nothing special. There's disagreement here over that issue with respect to various players. I don't think there's anyone on this Raptors team worth keeping, but some people do think that. Beyond winning at least 55 games, I don't know what stage a rebuild is in, or how long the winning will last. Dave's numbers jive with my personal observations over the years. There's no one reliable way to win continuously. The best predictor of future winning is past performance, which indicates a good owner (or a bad owner). The biggest problem with most sports franchises is the owner. Tanking doesn't work because there are no guarantees. Handing out big contracts doesn't work because most players aren't very good, and flexibility is reduced.

I'm anti-tanking, but, for the sake of things let me take the tanking angle. In most cases you are right, bad teams are usually owned poor ownership that meddles and/or bad management. However, what makes tanking a legitimate strategy in the case of the Raptors is the fact that they have Masai, who appears to be a very competent GM. He has the power, and more importantly, the intelligence to make savvy moves during a rebuild.

Unlike most tanking teams that fail intentionally looking at short-term growth Masai appears to use more long term strategies making a strip-down and rebuild far more legit.

[Jamshid]

Deng is coming to town ... Deng is coming to town ...

[thead]

Deng is coming to town ... Deng is coming to town ...

quit trolling...or post a source

[Jamshid]

quit trolling...or post a source

Stop with your trolling BS please. Check out ESPN ... There are rumours that Raptors is interested and when there is a smoke, there is a fire my friend.

[stretch]

The answer to the original post question is....were, not quite sure or a definite maybe.

I don't know that even MU knows the answer but I have to hand it to him that he's in a good position either way, making the playoffs (4th seed or bust) or selling high on the assets on the current roster if the right deal materializes.

[planetmars]

Stop with your trolling BS please. Check out ESPN ... There are rumours that Raptors is interested and when there is a smoke, there is a fire my friend.

There are 10 teams listed that are 'interested'.. and the 'source' could have just thrown the Raptors name in there to get ESPN hits. Doesn't mean its tangible at all.

[magoon]

There are 10 teams listed that are 'interested'.. and the 'source' could have just thrown the Raptors name in there to get ESPN hits. Doesn't mean its tangible at all.

Nine times out of ten in these situations the "source" is a player's agent, who has incentive to make his client look as desired as possible.

Seriously, overpaying for a Deng rental would be a classic BC move in this situation. It's no wonder BC was able to hang on to his job as long as he did: too many Raps fans have exactly the same terrible instincts he did.