Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted September 22, 2016 Writers...Pfffhhh...They really need to write less in the off season or at least space this crap out. They'll be less repetitive and more knowledgable. <Goes back inside cave while mumbling explicit adjectives at so called "writers"> someone needs to compile all of these stories so that we can point and laugh if we're a good team or use them to point out how deluded we were if we're a bad team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mauro Pedrosa 1,032 Report post Posted September 22, 2016 If Payton doesn't become one, I'm sure that'll be the next move we make. Yeah. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magicman28 295 Report post Posted September 22, 2016 someone needs to compile all of these stories so that we can point and laugh if we're a good team or use them to point out how deluded we were if we're a bad team. "They need an defensive big next to Vuch...They got an defensive big next to Vuch but they should still tank..." It's ridiculous. The constant star chasing...Disregard everyone else, just commit to sucking until you get one. The most superficial, laziest, uninspired, least in depth way of writing one can do to keep their journalist job. "Hey I don't have any idea what the Magic should do...They should tank." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted September 22, 2016 "They need an defensive big next to Vuch...They got an defensive big next to Vuch but they should still tank..." It's ridiculous. The constant star chasing...Disregard everyone else, just commit to sucking until you get one. in a vacuum we probably should tank. But we've assembled too much talent (prior to the offseason moves) to be bad but not enough to be a championship team. At that point you need to audible and pile together talent for potential trades or to lure a free agent. maybe things go right and we max out as a 4th seed or something and never reach the conference finals with this core. but then you just rebuild and try again. The biggest problem with our rebuilding philosophy isn't so much that we didn't luck out in the draft, its that we decided to tank when Philly, LA, Milwaukee, and Boston decided to tank at the same time. but yeah, its a weird way of looking at basketball as if entertainment or doing right by your players isn't valued. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magicman28 295 Report post Posted September 22, 2016 in a vacuum we probably should tank. But we've assembled too much talent (prior to the offseason moves) to be bad but not enough to be a championship team. At that point you need to audible and pile together talent for potential trades or to lure a free agent. maybe things go right and we max out as a 4th seed or something and never reach the conference finals with this core. but then you just rebuild and try again. The biggest problem with our rebuilding philosophy isn't so much that we didn't luck out in the draft, its that we decided to tank when Philly, LA, Milwaukee, and Boston decided to tank at the same time. but yeah, its a weird way of looking at basketball as if entertainment or doing right by your players isn't valued. Well we lucked out in the Wiggins draft somewhat. Cleveland just stole that one but yeah other than that, it's just been an timing issue. At this point, trades and FA signings will be the answer. The latter will happen by not continuing the suck. I rather read in depth articles about our core now, learn more about the potential from them and get good thorough analysis on what we can do to get better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted September 22, 2016 Well we lucked out in the Wiggins draft somewhat. Cleveland just stole that one but yeah other than that, it's just been an timing issue. At this point, trades and FA signings will be the answer. The latter will happen by not continuing the suck. I rather read in depth articles about our core now, learn more about the potential from them and get good thorough analysis on what we can do to get better. here's what I figure our plan is. I think Hennigan looked at the common traits of playoff teams and started to pursue those traits for the magic. Its rare for top 10 defensive teams to miss the playoffs so the magic should build a top 10 defensive team. What's stopping the magic from becoming a top 10 defensive team? Well the magic were 4th worst in FG% at the rim. How do you improve that? Obtain two of the top 8 players in rim protection. http://stats.nba.com/tracking/#!/player/defense/?sort=DEF_RIM_FG_PCT&dir=-1&CF=GP*G*40%7CMIN*G*15%7CDEF_RIM_FGA*G*1.5&Season=2015-16&SeasonType=Regular%20Season now we're in a position to have an elite rim protector on the floor at all times. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted September 22, 2016 Also, I found something interesting. Knicks were #1 in rim protection Knicks were #8 in opponent eFG% knicks were #18 in defensive rating. How the heck does that make sense? Knicks were #30 in opponent turnover rate. We massively underrate turnovers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Odin 137 Report post Posted September 22, 2016 So, I live in NJ so thought I would look up prices for a Knicks pre-season game as something to do, because it is Pre-season after all so the tickets should be cheap, right? Wrong. Lowest price per ticket was still over $40. Knicks fans who are undoubtedly not reading this- you are allowing your team to suck by paying such high prices for a mediocre to awful product. Magic, your ticket prices look a lot more reasonable now. I can get a Magic ticket to a game that actually matters for that price, and have money left over to buy some food. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted September 22, 2016 So, I live in NJ so thought I would look up prices for a Knicks pre-season game as something to do, because it is Pre-season after all so the tickets should be cheap, right? Wrong. Lowest price per ticket was still over $40. Knicks fans who are undoubtedly not reading this- you are allowing your team to suck by paying such high prices for a mediocre to awful product. Magic, your ticket prices look a lot more reasonable now. I can get a Magic ticket to a game that actually matters for that price, and have money left over to buy some food. That's just market dynamics. Think about how many people live within an hour of Madison square garden vs the amount of people who live within an hour of Amway. Easier to find 20k people to go to a basketball game there. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Odin 137 Report post Posted September 22, 2016 Also, I found something interesting. Knicks were #1 in rim protection Knicks were #8 in opponent eFG% knicks were #18 in defensive rating. How the heck does that make sense? Knicks were #30 in opponent turnover rate. We massively underrate turnovers. I have been thinking about this and am wondering if the current idea about turnovers and fundamental defense should be re-examined, especially when it comes to gambling for the ball. There are a few "truths" that we should think about- 1. Players who gamble for the ball allow the opposing player to shoot at a better fg% than not gambling 2. Players who gamble up the chance for a turn over 3. Players score at a higher fg% after a turn over than through the course of normal play 4. A turn over also removes the chance of the opposing team to score on that possession At what point would gambling to increase turn overs be worth it? a team that gambles a lot is able to increase the number of turnovers from 12 to 15, but this increased gambling increases the opposing teams' efg% by 3% over their normal average. However, the team gets 1.6 points per possession after a turnover, which is better than their normal 1.02 points per possession if they didn't gamble. This situation on face value is a loss as they gain an extra 1.5 points per game, but give up an extra 6 points (using 100 possessions for each team as a full game) or have -4.5 points from if they played as normal. If both teams were equal, however, the numbers would look different, as the team gambling would basically steal 3 of the other teams possessions, or a difference of 6 fg chances. using 51% efg% (or about average), the gambling team would increase their output to 106.8 points, while the other team would be scoring a slightly increased scoring output of 104.8 points, giving the gambling team a +2 point advantage. In this scenario, ~ 4% is the break-even point, or 1.33% per turnover. keeping any increase under 1.33% for the opposing team while increasing turnovers forced by 1 is a win for the team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bauncey Chillups 288 Report post Posted September 22, 2016 Been a while since I looked at anything basketball. Is Elfrid Pepe gonna be good this year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Odin 137 Report post Posted September 22, 2016 That's just market dynamics. Think about how many people live within an hour of Madison square garden vs the amount of people who live within an hour of Amway. Easier to find 20k people to go to a basketball game there. I understand. It just goes to show that the main NY teams (Yankees, Knicks, Giants, Rangers? (I think that is their more popular hockey team)) don't really have much incentive financially to win as they can fill up a stadium and charge ridiculous prices while having crappy teams. Even the secondary teams can get away with a lot of that. Meanwhile, smaller market teams have to have good teams to have decent ticket prices and fuller arenas. That isn't to say that they don't want to win, but the owners win financially even without winning on the court. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
