Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Masai has already failed

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

  • #31
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    Every now and then something on here makes me laugh out loud.

    This qualified.
    It's an illusion, argues Berri and much of sports economics history (the field was essentially founded with the 1956 publication of Simon Rottenberg's work to this effect). Meanwhile, the vaunted ability of a draft to help bad teams get good ... that is so tough to find that many economists insist it does not exist at all.

    In other words, the draft doesn't work to make bad teams good, because that's not what it was ever designed to do. It just gives that appearance.

    Comment


    • #32
      jamesk wrote: View Post
      It's an illusion, argues Berri and much of sports economics history (the field was essentially founded with the 1956 publication of Simon Rottenberg's work to this effect). Meanwhile, the vaunted ability of a draft to help bad teams get good ... that is so tough to find that many economists insist it does not exist at all.

      In other words, the draft doesn't work to make bad teams good, because that's not what it was ever designed to do. It just gives that appearance.
      Berri doesn't believe tanking works, but I'd love to see this 'much of sports economics'.

      Its not hard to find an economist pointing out exactly how valuable the draft is in the NBA and does exactly what its designed to do. Which is NOT to 'just make a bad team good'

      The problem is, you can't 'just draft and then be good', it takes a whole series of decisions over the course of seasons to become good. The draft is just the starting point where a team can get that player, or series of players, that allows them to maximize the total value of their team in the long run.

      Tanking and rebuilding are not the same thing - any econcomist who doesn't recognize that is NOT a good sports economist.

      Comment


      • #33
        Craiger wrote: View Post
        ...The problem is, you can't 'just draft and then be good', it takes a whole series of decisions over the course of seasons to become good. The draft is just the starting point where a team can get that player, or series of players, that allows them to maximize the total value of their team in the long run.

        Tanking and rebuilding are not the same thing - any econcomist who doesn't recognize that is NOT a good sports economist.
        100%

        Comment


        • #34
          Craiger wrote: View Post
          Berri doesn't believe tanking works, but I'd love to see this 'much of sports economics'.

          Its not hard to find an economist pointing out exactly how valuable the draft is in the NBA and does exactly what its designed to do. Which is NOT to 'just make a bad team good'

          The problem is, you can't 'just draft and then be good', it takes a whole series of decisions over the course of seasons to become good. The draft is just the starting point where a team can get that player, or series of players, that allows them to maximize the total value of their team in the long run.

          Tanking and rebuilding are not the same thing - any econcomist who doesn't recognize that is NOT a good sports economist.
          In the lottery era, there have been 150 teams to reach 55 wins or more -- a level around which a team can be said to be contending. How many of those 150 were bad at any point in the preceding four years? How many endured a season of, say, fewer than 30 wins? How many walked the path that tanking teams aspire to walk? Just 34 of 150, or 23 percent, according to the tallies of economist David Berri on the Freakonomics blog. And only two teams -- the Heat last year and Chris Paul's Hornets -- have gone from winning fewer than 20 games to winning more than 55 in four years or less (the Thunder never won fewer than 20). In other words, bad teams have almost no shot of becoming great with any speed, and one of the two that did did so through the power of cap space, not the draft. That's a blow to tanking teams everywhere.

          Does more time help? Not much. Win 34 games or fewer in any season, according to Arturo Galletti at The Wages of Wins, and over the next decade your chances of winning more than 55 are abysmal, at just 12 percent. Think about that. A 34-win team is not bad, winning 41 percent of its games. This season's closest equivalent would be the Timberwolves. But still, a team that good has only about a 1-in-10 chance of winning 55 or more at any point in the next decade. Heaven forbid you are a truly bad team. Even given a full decade to get it done, teams have done the full metamorphosis, from the cocoon of a sub-20 win season to the contending butterfly of 55-plus wins, only six percent of the time, and again, one of those was the outlier Heat.
          Meanwhile, in the four seasons after getting a top-three pick, teams are not living the dream. Dignam shows missing the playoffs for four straight years even after getting that plum draft pick is common, and writes: "After four years -- the amount of time on rookie scale contracts -- about 31 percent of the teams with top three picks hadn’t made the playoffs even once. Almost 26 percent of these teams’ best showing was only the first round. And a further 22 percent of teams topped out in the second round."

          Comment


          • #35
            Tanking is like fung shuey, however you spell that, people that think it works only cite the rare example of it working. The only redeeming factor in the tanking strategy is to acquire a superduper championship star; but the draft is a lottery and a crapshoot so good fuckin luck with that..paul george was 10th overall, the derrick rose bulls had the 9th best chance to get the #1 overall, durant went 2nd, jordan, went third, the players above them destroyed franchises for years, and the 7 win bobcats got....michael kidd-gilchrist.

            Respect the game, play to win, and cheer for your team. Otherwise, don't show up.

            Comment


            • #36
              jamesk wrote: View Post
              It's an illusion, argues Berri and much of sports economics history (the field was essentially founded with the 1956 publication of Simon Rottenberg's work to this effect). Meanwhile, the vaunted ability of a draft to help bad teams get good ... that is so tough to find that many economists insist it does not exist at all.

              In other words, the draft doesn't work to make bad teams good, because that's not what it was ever designed to do. It just gives that appearance.
              Ahhh, but Masai obviously knows that.

              That's why he's waiting for playoff bound teams to get hungry, so he can unload Lowry, Gay, the kitchen sink for some good young keeper talent and expiring contracts ... and draft picks, of course.

              Then, tank all the way while giving Jonas, Ross, Landry etc. burn to improve.

              Next year, consolidate the young talent that he's put together....and in 2 years bring in an all-star veteran.

              And WHAMMO, a perennial contender is formed.

              Comment


              • #37
                As an aside, here are the assets the other tank teams will likely have to offer to hungry playoff-bound teams as the season progresses (that other teams might want):

                BOSTON: Rajon Rondo, Jeff Green, Jordan Crawford, Kris Humphries
                PHILLY: Evan Turner, Thaddeus Young, Spencer Hawes
                PHOENIX: Goran Dragic, Channing Frye
                UTAH: Gordon Hayward (maybe?)

                Compare that against our tradebait. Right now Rudy looks like a much less credible option at SF as opposed to Jeff Green or Thaddeus Young. Hayward is probably more desirable for teams looking for an SG than DeMar is; right now so is Turner. Rondo and Dragic are much better starting PGs than Lowry, but they'll probably be more expensive; Jordan Crawford, on the other hand, will probably be cheaper since he's really a backup.

                Comment


                • #38
                  If you were another GM, show me the scenario you're in where you want lowry on an expiring small contract, or Gay with an opt out, and an extremely expensive opt in. Why would you give up a 1st round pick for either, or an identified talent? JJ Redick anyone?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    They aren't trading hayward, he's the bieber of young mormon girls.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      jamesk wrote: View Post
                      Tanking is like fung shuey, however you spell that, people that think it works only cite the rare example of it working. The only redeeming factor in the tanking strategy is to acquire a superduper championship star; but the draft is a lottery and a crapshoot so good fuckin luck with that..paul george was 10th overall, the derrick rose bulls had the 9th best chance to get the #1 overall, durant went 2nd, jordan, went third, the players above them destroyed franchises for years, and the 7 win bobcats got....michael kidd-gilchrist.

                      Respect the game, play to win, and cheer for your team. Otherwise, don't show up.
                      You do what works for you and let others follow their team the way they see fit.... at least that is my opinion.

                      The draft (players and picks) is the foundation of any successful team and talent acquistion.

                      Drafting players and hoping they become stars is one method. Clearly you seem to think this is the only method by which people advocating tanking are leaning towards. The reality is assets lead to acquiring stars whether from drafting or by trading.

                      This tanker advocator is all about acquiring assets, clearing the dead contracts weight, and building with a solid pillar in JV.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        jamesk wrote: View Post
                        In the lottery era, there have been 150 teams to reach 55 wins or more -- a level around which a team can be said to be contending. How many of those 150 were bad at any point in the preceding four years? How many endured a season of, say, fewer than 30 wins? How many walked the path that tanking teams aspire to walk? Just 34 of 150, or 23 percent, according to the tallies of economist David Berri on the Freakonomics blog. And only two teams -- the Heat last year and Chris Paul's Hornets -- have gone from winning fewer than 20 games to winning more than 55 in four years or less (the Thunder never won fewer than 20). In other words, bad teams have almost no shot of becoming great with any speed, and one of the two that did did so through the power of cap space, not the draft. That's a blow to tanking teams everywhere.

                        Does more time help? Not much. Win 34 games or fewer in any season, according to Arturo Galletti at The Wages of Wins, and over the next decade your chances of winning more than 55 are abysmal, at just 12 percent. Think about that. A 34-win team is not bad, winning 41 percent of its games. This season's closest equivalent would be the Timberwolves. But still, a team that good has only about a 1-in-10 chance of winning 55 or more at any point in the next decade. Heaven forbid you are a truly bad team. Even given a full decade to get it done, teams have done the full metamorphosis, from the cocoon of a sub-20 win season to the contending butterfly of 55-plus wins, only six percent of the time, and again, one of those was the outlier Heat.
                        Meanwhile, in the four seasons after getting a top-three pick, teams are not living the dream. Dignam shows missing the playoffs for four straight years even after getting that plum draft pick is common, and writes: "After four years -- the amount of time on rookie scale contracts -- about 31 percent of the teams with top three picks hadn’t made the playoffs even once. Almost 26 percent of these teams’ best showing was only the first round. And a further 22 percent of teams topped out in the second round."
                        I love how all the criteria is selected, 'sub 20 win team', 34 win teams, 4 years etc. Who selected that as the standard and why?


                        Lets look at 55+ win teams last year since this is WoW's standard:

                        Miami Heat - 2002/03 25 wins - #5 overall pick
                        OKC - 2006/07 - 31 wins #2 pick, 2007/08 - 20 wins #3 pick
                        Denver Nuggets - 2002/03 - 17 wins - #3 pick
                        LA Clippers - 2008/09 - 19 wins - #1 pick
                        SA Spurs - 1996/97 - 20 wins - #1 pick
                        Memphis - 2006 through 2009 - 22, 22, 24 wins - #4, #5, #2

                        The year before?

                        Miami (above)
                        OKC (above)
                        Spurs (above)
                        Chicago - 2007/08 - 32 wins - #1 pick

                        Year before that ?

                        Boston Celtics - 2006/07 - 24 wins #6 pick (traded for Ray Allen)
                        Chicago Bulls (above)
                        Miami Heat (above)
                        OKC (above)
                        SA Spurs (above)
                        Los Angeles Lakers - 2004/05 34 wins #10 pick
                        Dallas Mavericks - 1997/98 - 24, 20 wins - #6 pick (traded for Dirk Nowitzki)

                        So explain to me again WHY the criteria was selected as it was?



                        bad teams have almost no shot of becoming great with any speed
                        strangely enough so does any team not already great. Thats a blow to any team thats not already great!!

                        The ones that do are almost always 1) major market that buy their stars 2) tanked before, and obtained their star or asset in the draft, and are in the process of becoming great.
                        Last edited by Craiger; Sat Nov 9, 2013, 01:34 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Craiger wrote: View Post
                          I love how all the criteria is selected, 'sub 20 win team', 34 win teams, 4 years etc. Who selected that as the standard and why?


                          Lets look at 55+ win teams last year since this is WoW's standard:

                          Miami Heat - 2002/03 25 wins - #5 overall pick
                          OKC - 2006/07 - 31 wins #2 pick, 2007/08 - 20 wins #3 pick
                          Denver Nuggets - 2002/03 - 17 wins - #3 pick
                          LA Clippers - 2008/09 - 19 wins - #1 pick
                          SA Spurs - 1996/97 - 20 wins - #1 pick
                          Memphis - 2006 through 2009 - 22, 22, 24 wins - #4, #5, #2

                          The year before?

                          Miami (above)
                          OKC (above)
                          Spurs (above)
                          Chicago - 2007/08 - 32 wins - #1 pick

                          Year before that ?

                          Boston Celtics - 2006/07 - 24 wins #6 pick (traded for Ray Allen)
                          Chicago Bulls (above)
                          Miami Heat (above)
                          OKC (above)
                          SA Spurs (above)
                          Los Angeles Lakers - 2004/05 34 wins #10 pick
                          Dallas Mavericks - 1997/98 - 24, 20 wins - #6 pick (traded for Dirk Nowitzki)

                          So explain to me again WHY the criteria was selected as it was?





                          strangely enough so does any team not already great. Thats a blow to any team thats not already great!!

                          The ones that do are almost always 1) major market that buy their stars 2) tanked before, and obtained their star or asset in the draft, and are in the process of becoming great.

                          Raptors got the 2006 #1 pick on the back of a 2005 27 win season. Had there been a Wiggins, Parker or Randle available then, to go with Bosh, Derozan, Ed Davis, Hibbert, Ross... oh well, if my aunt had gonads, she'd be my uncle.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            jamesk wrote: View Post
                            In the lottery era, there have been 150 teams to reach 55 wins or more -- a level around which a team can be said to be contending. How many of those 150 were bad at any point in the preceding four years? How many endured a season of, say, fewer than 30 wins? How many walked the path that tanking teams aspire to walk? Just 34 of 150, or 23 percent, according to the tallies of economist David Berri on the Freakonomics blog. And only two teams -- the Heat last year and Chris Paul's Hornets -- have gone from winning fewer than 20 games to winning more than 55 in four years or less (the Thunder never won fewer than 20). In other words, bad teams have almost no shot of becoming great with any speed, and one of the two that did did so through the power of cap space, not the draft. That's a blow to tanking teams everywhere.

                            Does more time help? Not much. Win 34 games or fewer in any season, according to Arturo Galletti at The Wages of Wins, and over the next decade your chances of winning more than 55 are abysmal, at just 12 percent. Think about that. A 34-win team is not bad, winning 41 percent of its games. This season's closest equivalent would be the Timberwolves. But still, a team that good has only about a 1-in-10 chance of winning 55 or more at any point in the next decade. Heaven forbid you are a truly bad team. Even given a full decade to get it done, teams have done the full metamorphosis, from the cocoon of a sub-20 win season to the contending butterfly of 55-plus wins, only six percent of the time, and again, one of those was the outlier Heat.
                            Meanwhile, in the four seasons after getting a top-three pick, teams are not living the dream. Dignam shows missing the playoffs for four straight years even after getting that plum draft pick is common, and writes: "After four years -- the amount of time on rookie scale contracts -- about 31 percent of the teams with top three picks hadn’t made the playoffs even once. Almost 26 percent of these teams’ best showing was only the first round. And a further 22 percent of teams topped out in the second round."
                            I call BS on almost every stat in here.

                            jamesk wrote: View Post
                            In the lottery era, there have been 150 teams to reach 55 wins or more
                            For instance, there aren't 150 NBA teams. In this specific instance mentioned, there are maybe 10 NBA team being considered. You aren't just allowed to pretend that the every year, each franchise has a 'new' team, completely discrete and separate from every other year. It's a sly, misleading way to get around the problem of the sample size being way too small to generate any meaningful data.
                            Last edited by JimiCliff; Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:37 AM.
                            "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


                            • #44
                              ugh.

                              such bs, all of this.

                              The Toronto Raptors, will NEVER contend unless they hit gold in the draft. Period.

                              American Basketball players do NOT want to be in Canada.

                              Its not a new concept, and it isn't going to change.

                              People can analyze this shit till the cows come home but the fact remains, Toronto is a unique situation, not like most of the other franchises in the US due to its location. Its absolutely shameful how many people actually dismiss this as a complaint, or an excuse, when the facts are there, and its right in front of them. denial maybe? Who knows.

                              All I know is this, there isn't aplayer in the NBA right now who is considered an all star who wants to go North. none.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Craig wrote: View Post
                                ...All I know is this, there isn't a player in the NBA right now who is considered an all star who wants to go North. none.
                                But there could be 2 or 3 in a couple of years.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X