Leaderboard

If Kemba is in Orlando during the off-season, it sure makes sense for him to be here during the in-season.

This is just one guys opinion, but I’m pretty tired of reading the “you’re intellectually dishonest” type of comments anytime someone has an argument someone else disagrees with or thinks is faulty. Comments like that and ones similar really don’t advance the conversation and they just assume bad intent that isn’t there. If you think the argument is faulty you can point that out without maligning character.

Only thing I'm upset about is keeping Vuch's bum ass around. Inexcusable that he is still around.

But they really aren't. And I just showed examples to show that it's true. The odds at least aren't better enough to warrant intentionally driving your franchise into the dirt to get a slightly higher pick. Agreed, and it's one reason why I'm less of a frequent poster than I used to be. It's not intellectually dishonest, I already explained (and you avoided) that I misread and thought you included 2017 and 2018 in your posts. I was reading and posting while I was at work, and in reading quickly, I misread dates being used in your data. Instead of simply correcting me and responding to my mention of Fultz and Ayton with "I didn't include them in my data, because I didn't count the 2017 and 2018 drafts", you automatically went to the "intellectually dishonest" card. Simply because I disagree with your argument. There was no adjusted sample size. By including Fultz and Ayton, that actually made for examples 21 and 22, not 19 and 20, meaning by removing them, we are working with the same sample size. I.E. a "counting error" P.S.: I've never changed the goalposts. I have elaborated on my use of the term "bust" (something you again have avoided), and I have explained both 1.) my argument and the criteria for it and 2.) elaborated on my usage of terms to show that I have moved no goalposts. And in response to the Golden State example that was brought up earlier - yes, I know how many winning seasons Golden State has had before the Curry era. I live in the Bay Area. Current success aside (which was NOT built off of high lottery picks), Golden State is a perfect example of why tanking doesn't work. That franchise was a crap ball for decades before luck finally favored them (at the #7 pick, NOT a top lottery pick - and for the response that "#7 isn't that low" - it's certainly low enough that the fanbase blames this franchise for poor management when we win an additional game that drops us from 3 to 4, sooooo.....). They had to wait decades before they found their fortune. Again, not exactly a viable team building strategy.

Bad time to take a drink while reading this comment

Tanking is a viable philosophy to get good picks. Nobody is saying it's the only way to improve your team. But typically bad teams that have a hard time attracting free agents first have to hit it big in the draft. Drafting higher increases your chances of getting a star. Of course you can draft lower and still get star players. But your odds are better at top.

Yes. Honestly that is the one thing I like the most out of him and the main reason he will do well in the NBA. He just need to calm down and be smart on his shot selections.

I believe I want the same thing at ?FTW - for people to have good discussion and disagreement about basketball here. I think that can happen by saying when you think an argument is faulty or even outlandish without the accusations of malintent. Now maybe that’s not what he meant when he said it, in which case I’m making him aware that it is at the very least how I perceive it and it’s off-putting as a member of this forum. And frankly I think it’s a good reminder for all of us (myself included).

Just so I’m clear, this is meant as a statement on the quality of an argument where the split is 60/40 instead of the purported 50/50 and not meant to malign his character at all?

Basically this.

You know it’s the dog days of summer when you have an all-day debate over how bad our previous GM was or wasn’t. Actually it’s not even debating if he was bad or not it’s figuring out how bad he was lol

We really got people thinking playoffs with an Augustin/Grant/Briscoe PG rotation? Put me down for 29-33 wins

You can find a way to make everything an exception if you want to. Tanking doesn't necessarily guarantee success any more than any other option does. But that does not mean it doesn't work. Do you know how many winning seasons Golden State had in the 10 years before drafting Curry? 2. And while curry wasn't a top 3 pick, 7 is still pretty high. Name off the best players ever. How many were #1 draft picks? How many were top 3? You want to be a good team? You have to have a good player. Best way to get a good player if you are bad? Through the draft.

Did we get Kemba yet?

First of all, Brand was drafted by the Bulls, not the Clippers. So the fact that you're even talking about the Clippers proves my point about #1 overall picks rarely changing the fortunes of the franchise that drafted them. Secondly, Elton Brand was a good player, no doubt. But 20 / 10 is hardly franchise changing, and hardly worth setting your organization back for years with a tank philosophy to get him.

The purpose of tanking is to get a franchise changing player. Not Elton Brand or Kenyon Martin. So yes, under that criteria, they are busts, and it happens at about equal rates to getting a player who justifies the spot.

We play the Jazz, Thursday at 10

Troy Caupain to an official contract. https://instagram.com/p/BlE3zvoAtdN/

No. Hennigan wasn't that bad. Good players don't sign with bad teams. We pursued good players in free agency, they didn't want to come. Biyombo was a terrible move but the Lakers, Pistons, hornets, heat, grizzlies, bucks, blazers, pelicans, Hawks, Knicks, rockets, wizards and Mavs made similar bad deals. It's just kind of a situation where the league lost their minds. The ibaka trade was hennigan trying. You're being intellectually dishonest with your assessment.

Yeah the last 20 years but only between 1998 and 2013 so we get Kenyon Martin and kwame brown and olowokandi and Anthony Bennett. Yeah sure buddy. You're not intellectually dishonest

So then Fultz and Ayton would be years 21 and 22. So you're right that its 8/20 that weren't franchise changers. So 12 / 20 that were. So I'll concede the 60/40 split. But my point still stands that only 2 of those guys have won a championship with the team that originally drafted them. Only 5 of them have even gotten to the Finals with their original team. So 1 out of 4. Every 4 years, 1 player will come along that will change the fortunes of his team to get to a championship round. Every 10 years, 1 player will come along that actually wins his team a championship. That is NOT worth tanking an entire franchise for.

It's not the solution. Period. Your point basically proves it. Success comes from overall team building from all the means available to you. Not by tanking and hoping you get the right pick at the right time. You're putting the entire fate of your franchise on the wings of chance. Teams that have success used various means at their disposal. The draft is a huge part of that. But tanking for the #1 pick isn't. The most successful team of the moment, and nearing the discussion for the greatest team ever assembled, doesn't have a single #1 pick on it. It has mid lottery picks, a 2nd rounder, and free agents. They never had a single #1 pick. Philly may or may end up being one of the outliers that has success with tanking. But they are an outlier. Not the trend, and not an example that tanking is a viable philosophy.

No. Saying something is 50/50 when it's really 60/40 is just a counting error. Altering a sample size to fit your hypothesis is intellectual dishonesty. It's like if I said "we should never draft a point guard in the lottery because they're almost always bad" and you contested that statement. And I responded: "Almost every point guard drafted between 2013 and 2015 is below average" that's intellectually dishonest because it's tailoring the data to fit my hypothesis instead of using a real representative sample.