Official '15-16 NBA Season Thread: THEY WON ONE FOR THE LAND

[PhDeac]

Trevor Booker murdered the rim last night.

May God have mercy on that rim's soul.

 

[ChrisPaul3]

Eh, not really. The Cavs got to where they are because LeBron happened to be born a few miles away. The Clippers are where they are primarily because of a trade that was inexplicably denied to the Lakers. Both of those are #luck more than anything. The Warriors picked Curry at #7, Thompson at #11, and Draymond Green in the 2nd round; that isn't due to tanking, it is due to good talent evaluation. Agree that the Thunder and Wizards sucked for years, but they also haven't actually won anything of significance.

The Cavs got Kyrie Irving and the ammo for the Love trade by being at the bottom of the league for several years. Ditto for the Clippers with Blake Griffin and the ammo for the Paul trade.

 

[TexasDeac10]

Eh, not really. The Cavs got to where they are because LeBron happened to be born a few miles away. The Clippers are where they are primarily because of a trade that was inexplicably denied to the Lakers. Both of those are #luck more than anything. The Warriors picked Curry at #7, Thompson at #11, and Draymond Green in the 2nd round; that isn't due to tanking, it is due to good talent evaluation. Agree that the Thunder and Wizards sucked for years, but they also haven't actually won anything of significance.

I mean...

http://www.businessinsider.com/golden-state-warriors-nba-tanking-2013-5

GSW nailed nearly all of their picks over the last several years, and they got a little lucky with miraculously healthy Bogut.

But Barnes and Draymond were both products of tanking. It's hard to deny that.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

The Cavs got Kyrie Irving and the ammo for the Love trade by being at the bottom of the league for several years. Ditto for the Clippers with Blake Griffin and the ammo for the Paul trade.

How many games would the Cavs win with Kyrie Irving and Love without LeBron? The only reason they even matter is because of where LeBron was born. The Lakers had more ammo in the same damn building than the Clippers by actually winning, but the league just said no.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

I mean...

http://www.businessinsider.com/golden-state-warriors-nba-tanking-2013-5

GSW nailed nearly all of their picks over the last several years, and they got a little lucky with miraculously healthy Bogut.

But Barnes and Draymond were both products of tanking. It's hard to deny that.

Barnes was a mini-tank to avoid conveying a draft pick. The Warriors definitely super-tanked, hard, but only for a month, and only trying to preserve their draft pick in that year (side note: they were sweating through that draft lottery, as any team behind them moving up would've bumped them past the conveyance point -- they even tried to negotiate a deal to remove the possibility of conveying their pick right before the lottery, but the league said that wasn't legal). Draymond was a second round pick. You can't tank with the object in mind of getting a stud talent with a second-round pick. For the most part, GSW were traditionally bad but trying hard, fell apart, then nailed a series of picks and trades. It was aggressive good management, not aggressive bad management.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

How many games would the Cavs win with Kyrie Irving and Love without LeBron? The only reason they even matter is because of where LeBron was born. The Lakers had more ammo in the same damn building than the Clippers by actually winning, but the league just said no.

Was the Kyrie pick one of the ones they pulled from the 10 slot? I think they did that twice, meaning those picks weren't the result of tanking, they were the result of an insane run of lottery luck. They were still really nowhere until that last lottery miracle for Wiggins (after a season where they tried very hard) and Lebron coming home.

 

[PhDeac]

I mean...

http://www.businessinsider.com/golden-state-warriors-nba-tanking-2013-5

GSW nailed nearly all of their picks over the last several years, and they got a little lucky with miraculously healthy Bogut.

But Barnes and Draymond were both products of tanking. It's hard to deny that.

Barnes was the 7th pick after Thompson's rookie year and they acquired Bogut. They weren't tanking. They just hadn't realized Mark Jackson wasn't a good coach. Draymond was a high 2nd round pick. Almost every other team could have drafted him.

Was the Kyrie pick one of the ones they pulled from the 10 slot? I think they did that twice, meaning those picks weren't the result of tanking, they were the result of an insane run of lottery luck. They were still really nowhere until that last lottery miracle for Wiggins (after a season where they tried very hard) and Lebron coming home.

The Sixers are trying to manufacture lottery luck by sucking. That's just sad and hurts the entire league.

 

[deac29]

If the Sixers get the first pick in next year's draft and Ben Simmons ends up a top 5 or 10 player, the plan could end up successful. Now you could certainly argue there were other and/or better ways to get there, but they also have up to four other first round picks this year, plus the rights to Saric. How this all ends up is still tbd and depends largely on the luck of the lottery. The fact that the success on the tank does depend on the luck of the lottery could certainly be used to argue against the wisdom the plan, but on the other hand, by collecting #assets, the Sixers are maximizing their chances of getting lucky.

 

[Deacsfan27]

Oh, it most certainly does. The tank is just a long con by the GM/owner. They know they suck at drafting and aren't going to actually improve by going about it a normal way. So they come up with this fabricated methodology to dupe fans into thinking that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. It is all a diversion / excuse / justification for the losing that was going to happen anyway. Packaged as a #process to con the fans into keeping interest.

Advanced stats are very similar, the only difference is that the fans are conning themselves instead of forcing the team to do it for them. By focusing on the fabricated stats, the fans are trying to justify the losing to themselves. "We may not win many games, but we got dat PER and WAR! Those OWGs that root for winning teams without those #metrics are just fooling themselves, its all smoke and mirrors because the #stats don't support the wins, so they'll come back to the norm sooner or later and then the last laugh is on them! Suckers!" And if your metric du jour don't support that position, just come up with another calculation method that does. It's all just a diversion from the actual losing of games to keep interest, which is exactly what tanking is. If you root for an actual winning team, the absolute last thing that matters is how somebody adds/subtracts/multiplies/divides their raw stats.

You should really not ever post about statistics because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[buckets]

Oh, it most certainly does. The tank is just a long con by the GM/owner. They know they suck at drafting and aren't going to actually improve by going about it a normal way. So they come up with this fabricated methodology to dupe fans into thinking that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. It is all a diversion / excuse / justification for the losing that was going to happen anyway. Packaged as a #process to con the fans into keeping interest.

Advanced stats are very similar, the only difference is that the fans are conning themselves instead of forcing the team to do it for them. By focusing on the fabricated stats, the fans are trying to justify the losing to themselves. "We may not win many games, but we got dat PER and WAR! Those OWGs that root for winning teams without those #metrics are just fooling themselves, its all smoke and mirrors because the #stats don't support the wins, so they'll come back to the norm sooner or later and then the last laugh is on them! Suckers!" And if your metric du jour don't support that position, just come up with another calculation method that does. It's all just a diversion from the actual losing of games to keep interest, which is exactly what tanking is. If you root for an actual winning team, the absolute last thing that matters is how somebody adds/subtracts/multiplies/divides their raw stats.

How can you be so wrong on such a diverse spectrum of topics and issues? It's kind of amazing

 

[RedSoxFaithful]

let's get this 2&2 shitshow back on track

http://espn.go.com/nba/insider/stor...ter-chicago-bulls-rest-eastern-conference-nba

Boston has been the best team in the Eastern Conference this season -- even though if the playoffs started today, the Celtics would be sitting at home, not playing, as the ninth seed. Meanwhile, the Bulls have played more like the sixth-best team in the East.

What's more, the Celtics also have a much better outlook going forward.

Boston has played just four games all season decided by six points or fewer, tied for the league's third-fewest total. Almost every Celtics game has been decided before the closing minutes, leaving little room for the luck of the Irish. (Boston hasn't had much anyway, going 1-3 in close games.)

For the most part, those lopsided scores have favored the Celtics. Boston's nine wins by 15-plus points rank second in the NBA, trailing only the undefeated Golden State Warriors.

Don't start planning the parade route down Causeway Street just yet. The Celtics also have five double-digit losses, so their point differential so far is more consistent with that of a 55-win team than of a 60-win one. And again, the close losses Boston has suffered are banked, so BPI simulations have the Celtics winning an average of 50 games.

That's still a better projection than for the Bulls, the Hawks and the Miami Heat. Only the Cleveland Cavaliers and Toronto Raptors (51 apiece, though that surely underrates the Cavaliers because of the injuries they've dealt with) have superior projections in the East.

MAKES YOU WONDER

 

[P4nthers11]

Oh, it most certainly does. The tank is just a long con by the GM/owner. They know they suck at drafting and aren't going to actually improve by going about it a normal way. So they come up with this fabricated methodology to dupe fans into thinking that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. It is all a diversion / excuse / justification for the losing that was going to happen anyway. Packaged as a #process to con the fans into keeping interest.

Advanced stats are very similar, the only difference is that the fans are conning themselves instead of forcing the team to do it for them. By focusing on the fabricated stats, the fans are trying to justify the losing to themselves. "We may not win many games, but we got dat PER and WAR! Those OWGs that root for winning teams without those #metrics are just fooling themselves, its all smoke and mirrors because the #stats don't support the wins, so they'll come back to the norm sooner or later and then the last laugh is on them! Suckers!" And if your metric du jour don't support that position, just come up with another calculation method that does. It's all just a diversion from the actual losing of games to keep interest, which is exactly what tanking is. If you root for an actual winning team, the absolute last thing that matters is how somebody adds/subtracts/multiplies/divides their raw stats.

Philly's attendance numbers have plummeted. Their viewership has plummeted. Ownership is losing money on the tank. You argument makes no sense. Why would an owner adopt this approach if they didn't hope it would work? It would be more profitable to be mediocre if you truly think you cannot compete using conventional means. So just to walk through this (1) team is currently mediocre; (2) ownership realizes it sucks at drafting and cannot improve by going about it in a normal way; (3) owner decides to be really bad and cost himself a lot of money; (4) ownership does not believe the team will actually become a contender and this is to dupe the fans; (4) but owner cannot be fired by the fans and the most the fans can do is not spend their money on the team and cost the owner money; (5) by tanking the owner fast forwards to this result; and (6) the end game is that the team goes back to being mediocre and making the same amount of money and competing at the same level as before the tank, though the team lost a ton of money in the interim. I can understand criticizing tanking as a strategy, but debating the intentions of the people doing it makes no sense.

 

[TownieDeac]

Philly's attendance numbers have plummeted. Their viewership has plummeted. Ownership is losing money on the tank. You argument makes no sense. Why would an owner adopt this approach if they didn't hope it would work?

Haven't you been listening? It's for the participation trophies.

 

[RedSoxFaithful]

no, stop engaging the moron please

 

[Fuck Your Couch]

It really is unforgivable that Hinkie drafted Okafor over Porzingis though. Porzingis was a bigger risk but a higher upside, isn't that the whole plan? To swing for the fences for a potential star? Add to that that Okafor can't play with the 76ers only other good player and they'll have to trade one of them for something not as good as KP and it was a terrible pick.

 

[Milhouse]

2&2 doing solid work to you fools on this thread

 

[TownieDeac]

2&2 doing solid work to you fools on this thread

meh

 

[El Chupacabra]

I'm going to Cavs/Knicks in the Cleveburg on the 23rd. My sister bought the tickets because it was her idea. I was talking to my mom, who said they were about 200 bucks a piece. I thought my mom was embellishing that a bit and that it surely couldn't be that much. But yep, 200 bucks A PIECE. EACH. TICKET. Now I'm on the hook for that since I said I'd pay for mine. Way to go sis, and a Merry Christmas to you, too. Fucking Bron and Melo and Porzingis better play a quadruple overtime classic and give me high fives in between each quarter/overtime period.

This will be my third ever NBA game, after a Hawks/Pistons game in which Kevin Willis got ejected for fighting Bill Laimbeer (and someone shouted "you suck, Laimbeer" in that slight, silent pause between "land of the free"(pause)"and the home of the brave" in the Nat'l Anthm), and Hornets/Bucks playoff game in '01 where George Costanza sang the National Anthem and the Hornets lost game 5 or 6 from a Bucks team with Big Dog, Ray Allen, and Sam Cassell, during the Hornets headband craze.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Philly's attendance numbers have plummeted. Their viewership has plummeted. Ownership is losing money on the tank. You argument makes no sense. Why would an owner adopt this approach if they didn't hope it would work? It would be more profitable to be mediocre if you truly think you cannot compete using conventional means. So just to walk through this (1) team is currently mediocre; (2) ownership realizes it sucks at drafting and cannot improve by going about it in a normal way; (3) owner decides to be really bad and cost himself a lot of money; (4) ownership does not believe the team will actually become a contender and this is to dupe the fans; (4) but owner cannot be fired by the fans and the most the fans can do is not spend their money on the team and cost the owner money; (5) by tanking the owner fast forwards to this result; and (6) the end game is that the team goes back to being mediocre and making the same amount of money and competing at the same level as before the tank, though the team lost a ton of money in the interim. I can understand criticizing tanking as a strategy, but debating the intentions of the people doing it makes no sense.

See, they're duping you too. The Sixers operating income last year was $24.4 million, which was better than 17 out of the 30 teams. So they are in the top half of teams in terms of income, while having a fucking horrific record. Fans are duped, you're duped, and ownership is making money without having to pay anyone shit. Suckers.

http://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/list/

 

[dartsndeacs]

It really is unforgivable that Hinkie drafted Okafor over Porzingis though. Porzingis was a bigger risk but a higher upside, isn't that the whole plan? To swing for the fences for a potential star? Add to that that Okafor can't play with the 76ers only other good player and they'll have to trade one of them for something not as good as KP and it was a terrible pick.

I don't remember hearing a lot of Porzingis over Okafor talk leading up to the draft. Unforgivable?