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

  • #76
    JimiCliff wrote: View Post
    From the article:



    I think this is an almost comically flawed statement, because it makes no allowance for the fact that some franchises are simply chronically mismanaged, and would be awful no matter what strategy they were using. Tanking for picks is only one of the steps in a long process; if a franchise is bad because it bungs up any or all of the other steps, it doesn't make sense to them blame their lack of success on tanking.

    For instance, what if a team is tanking, but it has awful talent evaluators? It doesn't matter if you're in the lottery if the people making the draft decisions can't do their jobs.

    In this article, Berri makes no attempt to sort out which franchises were consistently bad at all levels (trades, draft success, free agents signings, etc.), so I don't find any value in the numbers he's giving that supposedly show that tanking itself is bad.
    I thought the article was extremely flawed and I would also like to add:

    what about the teams that had between 26 and 33 wins?

    Do they just not exist in history or what is the deal? I feel like that is an important range as the teams in 5th - 8th spot have ended up with the number 1 overall pick on more than a few occasions

    white men can't jump wrote: View Post
    I somewhat agree in the sense that the offseason matters a lot. They need to re-sign Lowry if they can at a fair deal. If they lose him this season was a bit of a waste. And I don't know that they need to really overpay him, but we'll see what the number is when he signs a new deal.

    But they do not need to make a significant move. They don't need to move in a linear trajectory of improvement, and make risky compromising deals to do so. It's fine sticking with this group for another year, possibly even two. Try to fill holes without trading away core pieces, or significantly compromising future flexibility and draft assets. If this team stays a 3-6 playoff team for a year or two, while maintaining flexibility and ways to improve, that's not bad at all. Though the onus is on Masai to at some point within the next couple of years to find a move that can push them above that level.

    But it is not "oh man, we won 48 games, I have to do everything I can to make sure we win 50 next year", to me it's "hmmm, we won 48 games, this team is not bad and I have to play my cards right to turn it into a 50+ win team for years"...Put it another way, I'd rather Masai makes the right move, even if it means 2 more years of 45 wins (give or take) if it then means 3-4 years of 50+ wins and being a contender, rather than make a rushed move, turn us into a 50+ win team for one or two years, then we start falling off. If he can find the former move this summer, that's great, but if not, I'd rather he keeps managing from a position of strength.
    I agree. This off season is important to retain key FA's but outside of that there isn't much we should do. We will be capped out after signing our own FA's so I doubt we will be making any FA acquisitions.

    Draft smart and bring in a couple of guys.

    I would even go as far as arguing that we will stick around the 45-50 win range for a couple of seasons regardless if we keep this core together or if we trade production for potential (by which I mean a DD for Wiggins trade or something of that ilk).

    But the question to Masai is: What plan do you put in place to give us the best chance of being a sustainable 50+ win team starting in either the 2015/2016 season or the 2016/2014?

    Comment


    • #77
      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.

      You mention the term 'superstar' a lot, but there are a lot of flaws in the definition of 'superstar', in itself. Is James Harden a superstar? Dwight Howard? Carmelo Anthony? Deron Williams (3 years ago?). Is a superstar defined after the fact team winning or putting up great numbers on a losing team? Or is it both? And does winning mean you've got to win the whole thing?

      If the definition is 'stats' only, even then, what's the criteria: offensive, defensive?

      Comment


      • #78
        fwiw - Demar's mid range efficiency (non paint, non threes) was 40.2% this year according to:

        http://vorped.com/bball/index.php/pl.../2013-2014-REG

        not 39.5%, but DanH's point stands

        2013-2014: 40.2% USG: 28.0 %of shots from midrange: 52.9
        2012-2013: 40.5% USG: 24.2 %of shots from midrange: 53.7
        2011-2012: 36.7% USG: 25.0 %of shots from midrange: 50.9
        2010-2011: 41.5% USG: 23.2 %of shots from midrange: 47.6

        I must say, I'm somewhat surprised by the lack of progression. Although the results in year 2, and the increasing USG rates do suggest that he's upped his game a little to cope with taking more shots.
        Last edited by stooley; Fri May 9, 2014, 03:08 PM.
        "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


        • #79
          stooley wrote: View Post
          fwiw - Demar's mid range efficiency (non paint, non threes) was 40.2% this year according to:

          http://vorped.com/bball/index.php/pl.../2013-2014-REG

          not 39.5%, but DanH's point stands

          2013-2014: 40.2% USG: 28.0 %of shots from midrange: 52.9
          2012-2013: 40.5% USG: 24.2 %of shots from midrange: 53.7
          2011-2012: 36.7% USG: 25.0 %of shots from midrange: 50.9
          2010-2011: 41.5% USG: 23.2 %of shots from midrange: 47.6

          I must say, I'm somewhat surprised by the lack of progression. Although the results in year 2, and the increasing USG rates do suggest that he's upped his game a little to cope with taking more shots.
          Yeah, vorped breaks it into non-paint rather than pure distance, so it's a slightly different sample. That's why the percentages are slightly different.
          twitter.com/dhackett1565

          Comment


          • #80
            golden wrote: View Post
            You mention the term 'superstar' a lot, but there are a lot of flaws in the definition of 'superstar', in itself. Is James Harden a superstar? Dwight Howard? Carmelo Anthony? Deron Williams (3 years ago?). Is a superstar defined after the fact team winning or putting up great numbers on a losing team? Or is it both? And does winning mean you've got to win the whole thing?

            If the definition is 'stats' only, even then, what's the criteria: offensive, defensive?
            All good questions. And all very hard to answer. Stats-wise, to simplify, models like WS use .200 (twice the average) as the cutoff. Too simplistic though, and WS is great but not all encompassing (and role players can excel with high WS). Perhaps a player with .200 WS and high usage (but how high? 20% is too low as it is very common)... I don't know that I can define superstar explicitly. Offensively Harden is certainly a superstar, defensively not so much. But does one cancel out the other? Depends. I probably wouldn't rank Harden as a superstar. Howard probably qualifies due to his defense. Anthony... Borderline. You picked good players to ask about, I think all of them are borderline, and that gray area certainly clouds the issue.
            twitter.com/dhackett1565

            Comment


            • #81
              stooley wrote: View Post
              fwiw - Demar's mid range efficiency (non paint, non threes) was 40.2% this year according to:

              http://vorped.com/bball/index.php/pl.../2013-2014-REG

              not 39.5%, but DanH's point stands

              2013-2014: 40.2% USG: 28.0 %of shots from midrange: 52.9
              2012-2013: 40.5% USG: 24.2 %of shots from midrange: 53.7
              2011-2012: 36.7% USG: 25.0 %of shots from midrange: 50.9
              2010-2011: 41.5% USG: 23.2 %of shots from midrange: 47.6

              I must say, I'm somewhat surprised by the lack of progression. Although the results in year 2, and the increasing USG rates do suggest that he's upped his game a little to cope with taking more shots.
              Because, like most people, you are not looking at ORTG - a much better overall measure of offensive efficiency. 110 ORTG @ 28% USG is phenomenal. Right on the cusp of elite offensive players and on the same tier as Paul George and Kyrie Irving. We went through this on the Demar thread, if anybody has time to dig it up again.

              Comment


              • #82
                golden wrote: View Post
                Because, like most people, you are not looking at ORTG - a much better overall measure of offensive efficiency. 110 ORTG @ 28% USG is phenomenal. Right on the cusp of elite offensive players and on the same tier as Paul George and Kyrie Irving. We went through this on the Demar thread, if anybody has time to dig it up again.
                Yeah, I was specifically referring to his mid range game. I know he's improved in other areas, like corner 3s and FTA and quite a few other intangibles this year.

                Those percentages btw, were only for his mid range shots, not overall FG% or TS% or anything.
                "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


                • #83
                  DanH wrote: View Post
                  All good questions. And all very hard to answer. Stats-wise, to simplify, models like WS use .200 (twice the average) as the cutoff. Too simplistic though, and WS is great but not all encompassing (and role players can excel with high WS). Perhaps a player with .200 WS and high usage (but how high? 20% is too low as it is very common)... I don't know that I can define superstar explicitly. Offensively Harden is certainly a superstar, defensively not so much. But does one cancel out the other? Depends. I probably wouldn't rank Harden as a superstar. Howard probably qualifies due to his defense. Anthony... Borderline. You picked good players to ask about, I think all of them are borderline, and that gray area certainly clouds the issue.
                  So who, in your opinion, other than Lebron and Durant are un-questionable superstars in the NBA?

                  And I'm not sure if I like the WS/48 definition so much. By that definition, a guy like Pau Gasol suddenly 'became' a superstar after being traded from Memphis to the Lakers. I think playing with Kobe and Phil Jax coaching might have had something to do with that.

                  What about these guys? Kevin Love, Tyson Chandler, Nene (DEN), Jameer Nelson (ORL), Ryan Anderson (ORL), Bosh (TOR), Billups (DEN). They've all been over 0.200 WS. Are they superstars? When did Tim Duncan stop being a superstar?

                  Houston Rockets acquired not one, but two borderline superstars in their prime, and just got knocked out by Portland rather handily. And they've got some nice role players like Jones, Parsons, Lin and Beverley.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Our actual draft selections will answer this question
                    We can potentially trade up for a rotation player using some our assets (Hansbrough, Salmons)
                    It won't be a superstar, but Masai is great at finding talent in places like these
                    But the real gem that will make us into contenders is the 2016 pick

                    It's almost certain that Carmelo is leaving this summer
                    Knicks have cap space in 2015 but by that time, the roster will have no up and coming talent (save for Tim Hardaway and maybe Shumpert). Unless Hardaway comes up, I don't see free agents coming right away
                    So the pick is probably gonna be lottery for sure

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      - Do I like the team getting playoff experience? Absolutely.
                      - Do I like American media giving the city props? Damn skippy.
                      - Do I like our fans getting love from opposing players? You know it.
                      - Do I like DD, Ross and JV all learning they need to get stronger and better defensively? Of course.

                      The culture change has started. Less tank talk. More talk of how much we give Lowry to stay.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        2kfeen wrote: View Post
                        ...I don't see free agents coming right away
                        So the pick is probably gonna be lottery for sure
                        Never underestimate the lure of the big apple on media conscious free agents. And huge dollars. Though, if they are crappy enough next year, they just might make player question why they would want to wade through the shit just to play in MSG.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          2kfeen wrote: View Post
                          Our actual draft selections will answer this question
                          We can potentially trade up for a rotation player using some our assets (Hansbrough, Salmons)
                          It won't be a superstar, but Masai is great at finding talent in places like these
                          But the real gem that will make us into contenders is the 2016 pick

                          It's almost certain that Carmelo is leaving this summer
                          Knicks have cap space in 2015 but by that time, the roster will have no up and coming talent (save for Tim Hardaway and maybe Shumpert). Unless Hardaway comes up, I don't see free agents coming right away
                          So the pick is probably gonna be lottery for sure
                          Definitely maybe. Half the time these things work out every time.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            BobLoblaw wrote: View Post
                            Definitely maybe. Half the time these things work out every time.
                            Like the Nuggets this year.
                            The name's Bond, James Bond.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X