Is Joel Embiid Greg Oden 2.0 ?

[Letter N]

This is a classic pro-tank strawman argument.

Nobody is against "the draft" or drafting superstars, the debatable issue is if you can actually accelerate and gain control over the "luck" aspect of drafting that superstar by deliberately fielding a crap team like Hinkie and others have suggested.

But simple math would tell you that you can accelerate it.

If you go from 15% chance of drafting 1st overall to 25% then you've increased your odds, that's a fact. Same as if you have 2 draft picks over 1, it's a fact that you increased your chances of getting a star player in the draft. The lottery balls not going your way or your scouts picking the wrong guy have nothing to do with your increased chance at success.

If I get 4 PHd degrees I increase my chance of getting a higher paying job, doesn't mean I'll get a higher paying job, it just means I've given myself more chances at it, and those years I'd spend in a room reading instead of being outside enjoying life would be what I'd give up for an increased chance at success.

[JimiCliff]

This is a classic pro-tank strawman argument.

Nobody is against "the draft" or drafting superstars, the debatable issue is if you can actually accelerate and gain control over the "luck" aspect of drafting that superstar by deliberately fielding a crap team like Hinkie and others have suggested.

I don't think this is a strawman. It's all of the evidence that we have. (Not perfect though, given the small sample size.)

[golden]

The NBA, the only community on earth where there is a popular belief that to be successful requires hard work and dedication to being horribly bad.

So your team stinks? You're not serious enough about losing to win my friend. Get with the program.

Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

Apparently Hinkie will be bringing in Olympic gold medallist Steven Bradbury as a motivational speaker at Sixers training camp...

[golden]

But simple math would tell you that you can accelerate it.

If you go from 15% chance of drafting 1st overall to 25% then you've increased your odds, that's a fact. Same as if you have 2 draft picks over 1, it's a fact that you increased your chances of getting a star player in the draft. The lottery balls not going your way or your scouts picking the wrong guy have nothing to do with your increased chance at success.

If I get 4 PHd degrees I increase my chance of getting a higher paying job, doesn't mean I'll get a higher paying job, it just means I've given myself more chances at it, and those years I'd spend in a room reading instead of being outside enjoying life would be what I'd give up for an increased chance at success.

You can't use simple math and average things out, because of the Pareto law (80/20 rule) and time. Some superstars are vastly better than others (i.e. Jordan, Duncan,...) and can dominate for extended periods and comparable players aren't available every draft. Also some GMs are vastly better than others (Pat Riley vs. Rob Babcock,...). It doesn't matter how many at bats I give Rob Babcock, to use your analogy, unless you want to wait a few decades like Donald Sterling and the Clips.

If you're okay waiting forever (Hinkie's diabolical plan for life employment, lol), then no problem, but the luck factor combined with GM skill factor combined with dominant player dominating for extended periodds means that you could be deluding yourself to think you can actually accelerate the timeline.

[KeonClark]

Detroit Pistons.

Only one I know.

Dallas mavericks.

[golden]

Dallas mavericks.

I like how the pro-tanking debate is changing over time. First it was how you have to tank for a top 5 pick, because that's where all the superstars have been historically drafted. And you can't go from the treadmill to conference finals contender. Now that Houston and Golden State have blown that away this season, it's now "you need to draft that superstar". No kidding. Every team is forced to draft players every single year, so the probability of a successful team drafting a superstar has to be close to 100% by definition. Talk about lowering the bar to win the debate.

[The Great One]

Dallas mavericks.

Dirk?

[JimiCliff]

Dallas mavericks.

IMO they 'drafted' Nowitzki, just like we 'drafted' Vince, but if you want to get all lawyerly and technical, then you can ague that, I don't buy it though.

[KeonClark]

IMO they 'drafted' Nowitzki, just like we 'drafted' Vince, but if you want to get all lawyerly and technical, then you can ague that, I don't buy it though.

Oh, I'm getting lawerly.

[JimiCliff]

Oh, I'm getting lawerly.

I would say that this is very lawyerly, yes

[KeonClark]

And I definitely think Miami's back to backs were acquired via FREE AGENCY, was Wade the 2nd or 3rd best player? Either way, he was 2nd (or 3rd) by a country mile. So you could say we drafted Demar or JV, and they could be a 3rd banana on a champ.

[JimiCliff]

And I definitely think Miami's back to backs were acquired via FREE AGENCY, was Wade the 2nd or 3rd best player? Either way, he was 2nd (or 3rd) by a country mile. So you could say we drafted Demar or JV, and they could be a 3rd banana on a champ.

The first couple of years they were together, Wade was still playing at an All-League level. That's what attracted Bosh and Lebron. Neither DD nor JV will ever be close to that, most likely.

[Scraptor]

I like how the pro-tanking debate is changing over time. First it was you how have to tank for a top 5 pick, because that's where all the superstars have been historically drafted. And you can't go from the treadmill to conference finals contender. Now that Houston and Golden State have blown that away this season, it's now "you need to draft that superstar". No kidding. Every team is forced to draft players every single year, so the probability of a successful team drafting a superstar has to be close to 100% by definition. Talk about lowering the bar to win the debate.

You can pick outliers for any argument. It's data mining. The vast bulk of the data shows that quality teams find their foundational player in the draft. Which Golden State did too; they weren't good when they drafted Curry or Thompson, and actually instituted a tank when they traded Ellis for Bogut to try and keep their protected pick (which was Barnes). Warriors fans were so pissed they booed during Mullin's HoF ceremony--but now they are reaping the rewards.

And as for Houston proving anything... A hot state with no income tax is pretty attractive. When Toronto or Milwaukee can land a Dwight Howard via free agency that example might hold water.

[JimiCliff]

You can pick outliers for any argument. It's data mining. The vast bulk of the data shows that quality teams find their foundational player in the draft. Which Golden State did too; they weren't good when they drafted Curry or Thompson, and actually instituted a tank when they traded Ellis for Bogut to try and keep their protected pick (which was Barnes). Warriors fans were so pissed they booed during Mullin's HoF ceremony--but now they are reaping the rewards.

And as for Houston proving anything... A hot state with no income tax is pretty attractive. When Toronto or Milwaukee can land a Dwight Howard via free agency that example might hold water.

The argument against this though, is that there just isn't enough data to actually be drawing meaningful conclusions from it.

But my stat game is too rusty to figure it out.

[OldSkoolCool]

So what the anit tankers are arguing is that we need a star to attract the free agents necissary to become a championship team.

Tankers are saying lets go for broke and try and get some stars.

So tankers are trying to do step 1 before step 2....and anti tankers are trying to do step 2 before step one whole downputting the tankers because they dont want to lose?

$0.02