TANK vs ANTI TANK - SUPER THREAD - The Because I Can't Keep Track Edition

[Axel]

Felt the same way about the consensus argument and made the same plea and it didn't stop.

Axel, you have strong feelings on the subject but the fact that the league and the owners changed the draft rules in recognition that a contender could be built over night proves that it's possible build a champion through the draft, even if it hasn't happened, it's only a matter of time and circumstance. They're gambling with billions of dollars. Masai would have tanked if not for luck. The Hawks would tank if not for there attendance. It's not just Philly, they're just the most extreme version. Teams concede games regularly at the end of the season to add ping pong balls. That's tanking.
Basketball is highly individualistic sport and often you have to acquire talent through the draft (some markets can use FA). One player can be the difference between winning and losing. Eventually a team will win a championship through tanking. It's a matter of time, circumstance and probability.

Ok, I'm not trying to be difficult and I don't think I'm that dumb, but I still really do not understand how these posts, talking about the draft and such relates in any way to my post, that you quoted, that wasn't debating the merits of either strategy and never used the word draft and simply stated "you cannot prove either side is right or wrong without a ring". You are free to disagree, but I honestly do not understand the connection that you are trying to make to my post.

[planetmars]

Which is funny because of your avatar.

His avatar has a guy standing in front of the tank.. signifying that he wants to stop tanking. At least that's how I see it.

[Axel]

His avatar has a guy standing in front of the tank.. signifying that he wants to stop tanking. At least that's how I see it.

Yes but it still has a tank in it, which were all the rage. I haven't seen such avatar unity since a bunch of us lost an avatar bet and had to put Bargnani in ours and then a bunch of people unrelated to the bet joined us.

[golden]

So it's been a few years since I posted on here. And it's kind of funny that this debate is the first thread I see -- some things never change I guess.

That said, I much prefer this debate in its retrospective form.

Here's the thing: Tank vs. Anti-Tank was always a managerial debate. So the question is, how do you construct a roster to give it the best chance at winning a championship.

And the metric of success can only be set in terms of chances of winning a championship vs. the alternative. Counter-intuitive though it may sound, actually winning a championship isn't relevant.

In this case, it seems pretty clear that the lottery talent of the past 5 or so years, even if you put it all on the same team, wouldn't stand a chance at winning a title, and that's even assuming you pick the right guys -- look at Philly.

So I think it's fair to say that in the circumstances, deciding not to sell your top talent for lottery picks was the better decision in terms of maximizing your odds at a championship. And, importantly, you can make that determination without actually winning a championship.

GS might not win the championship this year, despite signing KD. That doesn't mean signing KD wasn't the best move to improve their odds at winning a championship, and it certainly doesn't prove that they never should have signed him.

Some really nice points in there, but bang-on that this whole debate is really about management competence and also a high degree of luck, which MU mentions repeatedly. I had similar thoughts about management & luck in those dark days preceding the Gay trade.....

But the thing is, everybody keeps talking about OKC tanking model, Pacers player development model, Heat big 3 FA model, Celtics big 3 model, Spurs model, etc... In my opinion, there is no such thing as a successful 'model'.

There are general franchise building philosophies, such as: (1) maintaining financial flexibility, (2) developing players to exceed their initial potential, (3) culture of hard work and overachieving, (4) acquiring young talent, (5) not overpaying for the level of your talent, (6) acquiring character veterans, (7) selecting a great coach who has the balls to punish players who don't play the right way, (8) having a superior talent evaluation and scouting staff, etc..., etc...

The rest of what happens is mostly luck, especially being able to capitalize on unique opportunities that arise at that specific point in time. But following those franchise building philosophies puts yourself in the position to capitalize on those opportunities and is a sign of good management. That is more within your control. So, the idea that there is one type of 'model' that is more successful than the others or more appropriate for the Raptors situation, which must involve tanking for picks, doesn't really make sense, and has been proven to be false many times over. The draft is a lottery, lest we forget, and even if you hit the jackpot, you can still end up on the treadmill or even worse. The core franchise building philosophies are what counts - and if they take time to instill, then so be it.

[golden]

And emoji collection.

I found that practically un-readable.

[lewro]

Ok, I'm not trying to be difficult and I don't think I'm that dumb, but I still really do not understand how these posts, talking about the draft and such relates in any way to my post, that you quoted, that wasn't debating the merits of either strategy and never used the word draft and simply stated "you cannot prove either side is right or wrong without a ring". You are free to disagree, but I honestly do not understand the connection that you are trying to make to my post.

I don't think you are dumb and I never said anything close to that. Seems there are yrs of debate here that I am not familiar with. Lots of noise around the subject so it's easy to get mixed up regarding the thesis of each poster.
I was responding to the "ring" comment. I disagree. I think it's a matter of circumstance that it hasn't happened and a matter of time before it does. Regardless, it is shown that a contender can be built and even super teams like the heatles can fail.
If not for circumstance, we likely had a contender and possible champion in Vince/tmac. Like I said, even tho the spurs did not mean to tank, they won a championship within two years of drafting Duncan with the #1 pick.
Most teams don't have a Miami market to attract the heatles or lure shaq to make Shazam! The league, as you know, has strong protections around picks so that teams can be competitive and have a chance to contend. As I said, they also changed expansion rules to protect the old guard teams that built the league. That changed the fortune of the raps. The sixers went to the finals with iverson and instead we got camby. Huge difference. We should of received that right to select number one. Same in the first draft. We did not have ping pong balls. We were forced to flip a coin with grizzlies for 7/8 where there is a big drop off from #1. It took us 20 yrs to get to ecf. Potentially with iverson we could have got there in 6. We still had our chance with Vince/tmac but it's not an easy feat.
The raps may not wing a ring but this is a successful build. If they made it to the ecf through the draft then that is success as well. I certainly consider OKC successful and it's unfortunate that they didn't get to see it through with harden. I'm sure they would have won. It's a business afterall.

[Axel]

The raps may not wing a ring but this is a successful build. If they made it to the ecf through the draft then that is success as well. I certainly consider OKC successful and it's unfortunate that they didn't get to see it through with harden. I'm sure they would have won. It's a business afterall.

I know you didn't say I was dumb, I just wanted to really emphasize that I wasn't being deliberately difficult.

To the above, I do disagree. Success is measured in titles and history will ultimately support that. When people discuss the Pistons success as a starless team model, do they refer to the 5 straight conference appearances? No; they point to the 2004 title team.

I can understand that some people are fine measuring success by years of contending or deep playoff runs and that is their prerogative.

To use a non-NBA example, the Buffalo Bills of the early 90s. Are they given much respect for their series of Super Bowl appearances or do they get snide remarks because they lost them all? I'm a Ravens fan in NFL; they came to Baltimore in '96, so same timeframe as the Raptors. They have 2 Super Bowl titles since then (2001 and 2012). That is my level of success definition; consistently good but occasionally great. To me, this Raps group is good but we aren't consistently so (yet, perhaps) but I struggle to see how we become great enough to beat LeBron or the Warriors in a seven game series. I am hopeful and expect the team to try their best to beat them and I can enjoy the failure of last season but still call it a failure. A step in the right direction but ultimately falling short.

For me, the great tank debate was all about what is the best method for our team, at that time, to become a great team to win a title. So for me, a title is the only real measure of success. Without it, no one can say they were right but I've seen people try to. 2-3 series playoff record is a huge upgrade over the Bargnani, Gay etc Raptors but it's still not good enough to claim "success".

[lewro]

I know you didn't say I was dumb, I just wanted to really emphasize that I wasn't being deliberately difficult.

To the above, I do disagree. Success is measured in titles and history will ultimately support that. When people discuss the Pistons success as a starless team model, do they refer to the 5 straight conference appearances? No; they point to the 2004 title team.

I can understand that some people are fine measuring success by years of contending or deep playoff runs and that is their prerogative.

To use a non-NBA example, the Buffalo Bills of the early 90s. Are they given much respect for their series of Super Bowl appearances or do they get snide remarks because they lost them all? I'm a Ravens fan in NFL; they came to Baltimore in '96, so same timeframe as the Raptors. They have 2 Super Bowl titles since then (2001 and 2012). That is my level of success definition; consistently good but occasionally great. To me, this Raps group is good but we aren't consistently so (yet, perhaps) but I struggle to see how we become great enough to beat LeBron or the Warriors in a seven game series. I am hopeful and expect the team to try their best to beat them and I can enjoy the failure of last season but still call it a failure. A step in the right direction but ultimately falling short.

For me, the great tank debate was all about what is the best method for our team, at that time, to become a great team to win a title. So for me, a title is the only real measure of success. Without it, no one can say they were right but I've seen people try to. 2-3 series playoff record is a huge upgrade over the Bargnani, Gay etc Raptors but it's still not good enough to claim "success".

I don't think you are being difficult, i think you are opinionated and so am I.

yes, the pistons are a good example and also a historic anomaly. we've seen a lot more examples of single players from Mikan, Wilt, Jordan, etc vault there teams from lottery status to champions. Lebron is a prime example of being contenders in cleveland, to lottery and then champions or mj leaving the bulls to mediocrity and then returning to dominate.

i dont follow football. i do remember the missed field goal in '92. that's what makes me consider them losers to a degree but it was more how close they were, not that they were failures and the cowboys had a dynasty.

i do follow baseball somewhat. i consider the mariners to be a failed franchise in a sense considering their playoff history vs the jays and entering the league at the same time. similarly i could consider the jays a failure vs the yankees bc the yanks have won 7 vs our 2 over the same period.

we have a different measure of success and thats fine. if i got 95% on a test then I'd still be happy if that was 3rd highest mark , someone else got 98 and another 100. of course that's a disappoint if the 100% person got into harvard and i got into vassar but "i've had enough of your vassar bashing" - if you know that reference? i'd still be more successful than 26 other students and have a good life, presumably. maybe i'd do well and transfer to harvard the following yr?

we can leave it at a different measure of success. i think this debate somewhat runs a stride of other recent discussions like reggie miller getting into the hall without a ring or whether kyrie has anything to prove considering he already has a ring. i think if kyrie dies tomorrow, he dies a champion. if reggie miller dies, he dies a winner and both are successful. although fuck reggie!

[themasao]

I know you didn't say I was dumb, I just wanted to really emphasize that I wasn't being deliberately difficult.

To the above, I do disagree. Success is measured in titles and history will ultimately support that. When people discuss the Pistons success as a starless team model, do they refer to the 5 straight conference appearances? No; they point to the 2004 title team.

I can understand that some people are fine measuring success by years of contending or deep playoff runs and that is their prerogative.

To use a non-NBA example, the Buffalo Bills of the early 90s. Are they given much respect for their series of Super Bowl appearances or do they get snide remarks because they lost them all? I'm a Ravens fan in NFL; they came to Baltimore in '96, so same timeframe as the Raptors. They have 2 Super Bowl titles since then (2001 and 2012). That is my level of success definition; consistently good but occasionally great. To me, this Raps group is good but we aren't consistently so (yet, perhaps) but I struggle to see how we become great enough to beat LeBron or the Warriors in a seven game series. I am hopeful and expect the team to try their best to beat them and I can enjoy the failure of last season but still call it a failure. A step in the right direction but ultimately falling short.

For me, the great tank debate was all about what is the best method for our team, at that time, to become a great team to win a title. So for me, a title is the only real measure of success. Without it, no one can say they were right but I've seen people try to. 2-3 series playoff record is a huge upgrade over the Bargnani, Gay etc Raptors but it's still not good enough to claim "success".

Again, I think you're kind of fudging the point here.

Both of the following statements are true:

A) The Great Tank Debate was about the best method for winning a title.

B) Executing the best method for winning a title does not ensure you will win a title.

So if you look only to titles to "claim success" as you call it, both methods will be proven wrong.

Going back to what Golden said earlier, probably the only common trait amongst all championship teams is that they all won a championship.

Ultimately, you're looking at it backwards. People love to look at what famous singers and athletes did to become successful so they can replicate it. Unfortunately, while every singer/athlete who 'made it' had to work extremely hard and practice tons, not every person who works extremely hard and practices tons will make it - most won't. That doesn't mean working hard and practicing tons wasn't the best method to 'make it' though. If you look to their success as the legitimization of their methods, then you're entirely missing the point.

All that said, I don't think anyone is claiming that the ultimate goal here isn't a championship. But just because we haven't yet, and may not ever (who knows), win a championship, doesn't mean we're not on the best and most efficient managerial path to maximizing our odds at a championship. I think that, currently, we are, and a massive kudos goes out to Masai for always evaluating each decision on its merits and not succumbing to the temptations of an ideological approach to team building (see: Sam Hinkie).

[Axel]

Again, I think you're kind of fudging the point here.

Both of the following statements are true:

A) The Great Tank Debate was about the best method for winning a title.

B) Executing the best method for winning a title does not ensure you will win a title.

So if you look only to titles to "claim success" as you call it, both methods will be proven wrong.

Going back to what Golden said earlier, probably the only common trait amongst all championship teams is that they all won a championship.

Ultimately, you're looking at it backwards. People love to look at what famous singers and athletes did to become successful so they can replicate it. Unfortunately, while every singer/athlete who 'made it' had to work extremely hard and practice tons, not every person who works extremely hard and practices tons will make it - most won't. That doesn't mean working hard and practicing tons wasn't the best method to 'make it' though. If you look to their success as the legitimization of their methods, then you're entirely missing the point.

All that said, I don't think anyone is claiming that the ultimate goal here isn't a championship. But just because we haven't yet, and may not ever (who knows), win a championship, doesn't mean we're not on the best and most efficient managerial path to maximizing our odds at a championship. I think that, currently, we are, and a massive kudos goes out to Masai for always evaluating each decision on its merits and not succumbing to the temptations of an ideological approach to team building (see: Sam Hinkie).

Both methods could be proven wrong, absolutely true. But only one way can be true based on our actions but it doesn't mean it will be.

We will never know what would have happened if we had tanked. We could have ended up with an amazing core of players like Wiggins, Porzingis, LaVine and such and it could have led to a dynasty. Or we could have ended up much like we have in our history with Bargnani's and Hoffa's. We don't know, so to measure the success that this group is currently experiencing and trying to compare it to hypothetical possibilities and then making the clear statement that one is better than the other is impossible. You can say that the decision was great and that you are thrilled by it but since the defined goal was a championship, you can't claim one method as proven anything without a ring. That was the point I made in response to a poster claiming that they were proven right by this team losing to the Cavs in the ECF.

[lewro]

A comparable is that would could have become like the twolves. If we can't get around lebron than perhaps our window closes. Wolves window starts to open then and they may have the most talented team in the league. Time will tell. I like our team but I love the draft and the wolves. They're fun!

[Lupe]

One thing I'd like to point out also is that with a tank derozan most likely wouldn't have been traded. Masai was heavily involved in drafting him in the first place and he was still in his early 20s (23/24) when those decisions were being made or discussed in summer 2013 and early in the 2013/14 season.

[JamesNaismith]

A comparable is that would could have become like the twolves. If we can't get around lebron than perhaps our window closes. Wolves window starts to open then and they may have the most talented team in the league. Time will tell. I like our team but I love the draft and the wolves. They're fun!

You see this kind of assumption I find so inaccurate...

1. We would have been bad but not THAT bad...we still would have had DeMar, JV, Ross etc. So the idea was to "rebuild" around them because prior to the Rudy trade we hadn't proven we could win and we had no pick in 2013

2. With that at the time young core still relatively in tact, I think if we were very lucky we would just make it in n get #5 overall...more than likely imo we would have been in the 6-10 range. So are odds would be drastically lower of not only fluking into one #1 pick (Wiggins) but another (KAT).

So with that in mind even if we say that we got in the 5-10 range we would have been looking at players like Randle, Exum etc not Wiggins, Parker and also highly unlikely Embiid with JV still here during the '14 draft and in '15 it would have been more likely Mudiay, Turner, and not likely Booker when we still would have had DD n Ross. So while I think that could have created a very solid young team...I don't think we really would have been any better just would have happened later. Hard to imagine imo that, that hypothetical team would eventually be a 55+W team n we could become a 60W team...the grass isn't always greener.

[DanH]

One thing I'd like to point out also is that with a tank derozan most likely wouldn't have been traded. Masai was heavily involved in drafting him in the first place and he was still in his early 20s (23/24) when those decisions were being made or discussed in summer 2013 and early in the 2013/14 season.

I doubt he would have been traded immediately (ie winter 2014) but I do think they explore moving him by the end of the year, as it has been reported in the years since that DeRozan would have requested a trade if the team had tanked.

[Lupe]

I doubt he would have been traded immediately (ie winter 2014) but I do think they explore moving him by the end of the year, as it has been reported in the years since that DeRozan would have requested a trade if the team had tanked.

I think you mean winter 2013 but fair point