Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This Team Needs to Attack the Rim on Offense

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

  • #46
    JimiCliff wrote: View Post
    That's selling him short a little. His Seattle and Milwaukee teams were weren't just run and gun.
    Actually the 95-96 Sonics team played with the 3rd fastest pace in the league and got to the finals.

    You can run and gun, you just need to also be disciplined and get back on D. They were #2 in defense that year. They were a below average 3PT shooting team (16th) but were 2nd in FTA and 7th in percentage. Part of the reason they were so effective defensively is because they forced a ton of turnovers. And I mean they also had Gary Payton lol.

    Comment


    • #47
      Xixak wrote: View Post
      Actually the 95-96 Sonics team played with the 3rd fastest pace in the league and got to the finals.

      You can run and gun, you just need to also be disciplined and get back on D. They were #2 in defense that year. They were a below average 3PT shooting team (16th) but were 2nd in FTA and 7th in percentage. Part of the reason they were so effective defensively is because they forced a ton of turnovers. And I mean they also had Gary Payton lol.
      I said "just".
      "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


      • #48
        JimiCliff wrote: View Post
        I said "just".
        ok

        Comment


        • #49
          Xixak wrote: View Post
          Exactly lol. Not all the anti-tankers think this is a 50 win team.

          I'm just opposed to selling low on players. Trading Lowry and Gay now just to tank would be kind of silly, especially considering it's very likely that they will raise their value during this season since they're in contract years (and also in bigger roles than they have been for most of their careers). Pretty sure Ujiri knows this as well.
          I think the bolded is the exact reason for so much disconnect between pro and anti tankers.

          Anti-tankers seem to think that all pro-tankers want to do is dump good/expensive players to lose as many games as possible, while hopefully acquiring some additional draft picks as well. They look at the talent coming back as being sub-par and losing as being a bad thing. They tend to have a shorter term view of the impact of any potential transaction.

          Pro-tankers don't think this current Raptors team is going to ever be good enough to do more than challenge for the #7-8 seed, to become 1st round playoff fodder. They place a premium value on the future value of both draft picks and financial flexibility, thinking more about what those things could become, while worrying less about the talent of the players being acquired. They tend to have a longer term view of the impact of any potential transactions.

          Since both sides are looking at the same trade through an entirely different lens, with different talent comparison timelines and different asset valuation, it really shouldn't come as any surprise why there is so much head-butting.


          I like to compare it to trade-deadline deals made in MLB every season. You often see a significant player traded for multiple minor-league players, with everybody (media, experts, fans, etc...) proclaiming the team (Team-A) receiving the best player the 'winner' of the trade. Team-A may even go on to win a playoff series or a championship. The other team (Team-B) is often viewed quite negatively. However, if Team-B knew they weren't going to win this year (or next year) anyway, then there's no reason for them to worry about their relative performance to Team-A. 3 seasons from now, the big name player might be retired or suffer a serious drop-off in production (since they're usually veteran star players), while those no-name minor leaguers are now turning into solid players or possibly stars of their own. Team-A had immediate success as a result of the trade, which is what their goal was, while Team-B had success a couple years later, which is what their goal was. There are many instances of trades where the team considered as the 'loser' in the trade initially, is lauded as the eventual 'winner' of the trade when the prospects they received become stars in their own right. It's as much about when your expectations and goals are, as it is about what they are.

          Anti-tankers worry that the assets (ie: young players, draft picks and future cap space) received in trade for players who are already some degree of 'good' will never produce a player better than the one traded away. They also hold out hope that the current team will exceed expectations and be successful.

          Pro-tankers gladly take the risk that anti-tankers are concerned about, because they don't foresee success in the short-term anyway, but see potential huge reward if even one acquired asset can become a superstar. If multiple acquired assets develop into useful players (ie: a prospect develops into a rotation player, a draft pick becomes an all-star caliber starter and cap space that becomes available a season or two earlier is used to sign a solid rotation player, then that's all just gravy).
          Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Thu Aug 15, 2013, 12:40 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
            Anti-tankers worry that the assets (ie: young players, draft picks and future cap space) received in trade for players who are already some degree of 'good' will never produce a player better than the one traded away. They also hold out hope that the current team will exceed expectations and be successful.
            Wrong. Anti-tankers are not concerned with that. What anti-tankers have a problem with is short-changing ourselves on a player in order to try and achieve some other goal. It's poor asset management. You should always be trying to maximize the value of an asset. If that means you have to wait till the deadline a full-season or maybe even the end of their careers to move Gay/Lowry then you do it.

            I also find it hilarious that you try to act as if you're impartial, when you are clearly a pro-tanker.

            Comment


            • #51
              Xixak wrote: View Post
              Wrong. Anti-tankers are not concerned with that. What anti-tankers have a problem with is short-changing ourselves on a player in order to try and achieve some other goal. It's poor asset management. You should always be trying to maximize the value of an asset. If that means you have to wait till the deadline a full-season or maybe even the end of their careers to move Gay/Lowry then you do it.

              I also find it hilarious that you try to act as if you're impartial, when you are clearly a pro-tanker.
              The whole point of my post was saying exactly what you said in the bold. You illustrated my point perfectly, since it's a matter of what constitutes 'short changing' and what return will 'maximize the value', where the two sides have a difference of opinion.

              I never gave an example of a trade, so how can you be so sure what value I personally place on any of the Raptors current players? In fact, I clearly pointed out that a trade like Detroit is rumored to have offered, is one that I would hope nobody on any side of any argument would see as being the type of trade Toronto should execute. I even went so far as to explain how such a trade could have the return value driven up by various influencing factors, culminating in a trade being made at the deadline instead of now - which again is exactly the same thing you've said before and said again.

              I am all about asset maximization. My post was pointing out how the root cause of the difference of opinion between pro and anti tankers is what constitutes 'maximization', and how the time horizon of evaluating/comparing 'current value' and 'future value' is another key to the opposing perceptions.
              Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Thu Aug 15, 2013, 12:52 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                The whole point of my post was saying exactly what you said in the bold. You illustrated my point perfectly, since it's a matter of what constitutes 'short changing' and what return will 'maximize the value', where the two sides have a difference of opinion.

                I never gave an example of a trade, so how can you be so sure what value I personally place on any of the Raptors current players? In fact, I clearly pointed out that a trade like Detroit is rumored to have offered, is one that I would hope nobody on any side of any argument would see as being the type of trade Toronto should execute. I even went so far as to explain how such a trade could have the return value driven up by various influencing factors, culminating in a trade being made at the deadline instead of now - which again is exactly the same thing you've said before and said again.

                I am all about asset maximization. My post was pointing out how the root cause of the difference of opinion between pro and anti tankers is what constitutes 'maximization'.
                What? When did I claim that you place a certain value on our players?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Xixak wrote: View Post
                  Wrong. Anti-tankers are not concerned with that. What anti-tankers have a problem with is short-changing ourselves on a player in order to try and achieve some other goal. It's poor asset management. You should always be trying to maximize the value of an asset. If that means you have to wait till the deadline a full-season or maybe even the end of their careers to move Gay/Lowry then you do it.

                  I also find it hilarious that you try to act as if you're impartial, when you are clearly a pro-tanker.
                  I find it hilarious that, despite having the "pro-tank" (which isn't even representative of the arguments being presented, but hey, semantics) perspective explained to you a number of times by the "pro-tankers" themselves, you still don't get it, and worse, you seem to think you understand what those "pro-tankers" want better than they do.

                  Both sides are basically arguing the same damn thing. This current roster isn't good enough to win a championship, and there's a good chance it's not even good enough to make the playoffs at all. So how do you go about making it better and improving its chances of winning a championship? You use the assets on hand as best you can.

                  Not "let's get fleeced just so we can get rid of Rudy and Lowry (and maybe Derozan)".
                  Not "let's lose as many games as possible so we can get a lottery pick in 2014".
                  Not, in other words, "let's tank".
                  Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    jimmie wrote: View Post
                    I find it hilarious that, despite having the "pro-tank" (which isn't even representative of the arguments being presented, but hey, semantics) perspective explained to you a number of times by the "pro-tankers" themselves, you still don't get it, and worse, you seem to think you understand what those "pro-tankers" want better than they do.

                    Both sides are basically arguing the same damn thing. This current roster isn't good enough to win a championship, and there's a good chance it's not even good enough to make the playoffs at all. So how do you go about making it better and improving its chances of winning a championship? You use the assets on hand as best you can.

                    Not "let's get fleeced just so we can get rid of Rudy and Lowry (and maybe Derozan)".
                    Not "let's lose as many games as possible so we can get a lottery pick in 2014".
                    Not, in other words, "let's tank".
                    I'll ask you the same question I asked in the Signs of Tanking thread:

                    Say we get to the trade deadline and only Detroit really has interest in Gay. BUT, Smith at 3 with Monroe at 4 isn't working out too poorly, so they're willing to live with it. As a result, they are not willing to add to their offer of Stuckey+Villanueva for Gay?

                    Then as a pro-tanker what do you do?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Xixak wrote: View Post
                      What? When did I claim that you place a certain value on our players?
                      Ummm the way you found it "hillarious" that I was clearly a biased pro-tanker, and therefore implied that:
                      - I am unable to impartially understand both the pro and anti tanking arguments
                      - I am ok with trades that short-change the Raptors
                      - I don't understand and/or don't care about asset management
                      - I don't care about maximizing the return for Raptors players

                      What I find hillarious is how you state I'm "wrong", despite the fact that many of the points I made echoed the very same points you have made and that your reasons for me being "wrong" were never once metioned by me - those things were incorrectly inferred by you.

                      I don't really care if you agree with me. I'm only sharing some thoughts that I've come up with by actually reading, thinking about and trying to understand points made by posters on both sides of the tanking argument. I just wish that if you're going to disagree with something I said, that you were disagreeing with something I said, not something you think I said/meant.


                      EDIT: for the record, I've always considered myself to be in favor or 'rebuilding' or 'retooling', as opposed to 'tanking' (although several pro-tankers have pointed out that I share simlar goals/expectations as them, so the titles are merely semantics). I think the Raptors have some good pieces to build around and some good trade chips. I would never just dump talent to improve our own draft pick (ie: I would say NO to Detroit in your scenario). Every trade should return the 'best' possible return and only be made if that return is sufficiently 'good' to pull the trigger - of course 'best' and 'good' are extremely subjective, as is the expectation of what the team's goal is and what the timeframe for seeing that goal come to fruition is.
                      Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Thu Aug 15, 2013, 01:10 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                        What I find hillarious is how you state I'm "wrong", despite the fact that many of the points I made echoed the very same points you have made and that your reasons for me being "wrong" were never once metioned by me - those things were incorrectly inferred by you.
                        Umm excuse me? I quoted 4 lines out of your long post and said they were wrong. I did not say you were wrong or that your whole post was wrong.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          On the other hand it is funny that you are mimicking me in order to make a point, I didn't realize this was a kindergarten classroom.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Xixak wrote: View Post
                            I'll ask you the same question I asked in the Signs of Tanking thread:

                            Say we get to the trade deadline and only Detroit really has interest in Gay. BUT, Smith at 3 with Monroe at 4 isn't working out too poorly, so they're willing to live with it. As a result, they are not willing to add to their offer of Stuckey+Villanueva for Gay?

                            Then as a pro-tanker what do you do?
                            I'm not a pro-tanker.
                            Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              jimmie wrote: View Post
                              I'm not a pro-tanker.
                              kk

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Xixak wrote: View Post
                                Umm excuse me? I quoted 4 lines out of your long post and said they were wrong. I did not say you were wrong or that your whole post was wrong.
                                Xixak wrote: View Post
                                On the other hand it is funny that you are mimicking me in order to make a point, I didn't realize this was a kindergarten classroom.
                                I'm sorry that you can't see the forest for the trees.

                                The 4 lines you quoted from my post were cherry-picked, taken a little out of context (by excluding other parts of my post that expanded on my explantion of those 4 lines) and based your argument on things you incorrectly inferred from my post (jimmie did a good job of exposing that), rather than what my post actually said.

                                I'm not mimicking or disrespecting, I've just reached my wits end trying to explain my apparent pro-tanking point of view. Despite numerous attemps by many pro-tankers (or people that just get what the pro-tankers are actually in favor of) to explain their preferences, you still seem to base your arguments on your own perception of what "pro-tanking" actually is.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X