Leaderboard

Oh...Boy. This is another channel I enjoy. I don't consume terrible media all the time even though its what.............90 PERCENT OF WHAT i COMPLAIN ABOUT?

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).

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.

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.

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.