Ibn Battuta 127 Report post Posted March 8, 2017 Ok. Ok. I'll simplify this as much as possible You can find any player at any pick given enough time. The success rate of finding good players are significantly greater the higher you pick in the draft. So just because jimmy butler became great doesn't mean building a team by picking in the 20s makes logical sense. Because given enough attempts, improbable things happen. But if you strategize based on improbabilities you'll waste a lot of time What you're saying a child could understand. "The higher the pick the better chance for a better player! No way!" But what you fail to see is drafting said player is still totally against the odds. You yourself just posted the odds of getting a HOF player. Also I've NEVER advocated we should consistently pick in the 20s a la Jimmy Butler. What I have advocated is building a winning team which there are "less improbabilities" involved by signing good players, and building strong culture/tone. We haven't done any of those things. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ibn Battuta 127 Report post Posted March 8, 2017 But if you strategize based on improbabilities you'll waste a lot of time The irony is thick here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJZFL 625 Report post Posted March 8, 2017 What you're saying a child could understand. "The higher the pick the better chance for a better player! No way!" But what you fail to see is drafting said player is still totally against the odds. You yourself just posted the odds of getting a HOF player. Also I've NEVER advocated we should consistently pick in the 20s a la Jimmy Butler. What I have advocated is building a winning team which there are "less improbabilities" involved by signing good players, and building strong culture/tone. We haven't done any of those things. This is also what I've been saying. Tanking by definition means you're trying to put a losing team out on the floor. The better the team is at losing, the deeper the hole you've dug for yourself, and the less likely that any one draft pick can fix it, unless you get the extremely rare force of nature like LeBron. I think this strategy actually puts the odds more against you succeeding, and in any case is very high risk. If your not lucky or get lucky in a weak year, you could be uncompetitive for a decade or more. I prefer Ibn's strategy. Make the team as good as you can, have a culture of always competing like Miami, hope you find an above average GM that can find some players that other GMs overlook, and maybe get a little lucky in the draft also. By the way, no one said that 100% of your picks have to work out. Talk about addressing an argument that wasn't being made. Just be enough above average to give your team a little better shot than others at finding overlooked players. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
magicblue 315 Report post Posted March 8, 2017 Were not trying to lose, we suck. Fans call it tanking because it makes us feel like there's a benefit to it, a higher draft pick. The guys on the court are not being instructed to lose, but to make it look good. They're trying to win and can't, because again, we suck. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted March 8, 2017 What you're saying a child could understand. "The higher the pick the better chance for a better player! No way!" But what you fail to see is drafting said player is still totally against the odds. You yourself just posted the odds of getting a HOF player. Also I've NEVER advocated we should consistently pick in the 20s a la Jimmy Butler. What I have advocated is building a winning team which there are "less improbabilities" involved by signing good players, and building strong culture/tone. We haven't done any of those things. But the odds aren't that bad. A 30% chance of something happening is extremely likely given 4 chances. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ibn Battuta 127 Report post Posted March 8, 2017 But the odds aren't that bad. A 30% chance of something happening is extremely likely given 4 chances. This is supposed to be in green font right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted March 8, 2017 This is supposed to be in green font right? Skip statistics in high school? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ibn Battuta 127 Report post Posted March 8, 2017 Skip statistics in high school? Maybe you should go flip a coin a few times and tell us if it's exactly 50/50 like you think. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ibn Battuta 127 Report post Posted March 8, 2017 "Mr. DeVos, please give me another chance. By my calculations our luck should be changing any year now. My statistics professor said so!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted March 8, 2017 Maybe you should go flip a coin a few times and tell us if it's exactly 50/50 like you think. Its extremely likely, given 3 chances, that you'd succeed in flipping whichever you'd consider a success at least once. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ibn Battuta 127 Report post Posted March 8, 2017 Its extremely likely, given 3 chances, that you'd succeed in flipping whichever you'd consider a success at least once. Sounds like you missed the first class. Else you'd know probability is just the LIKELIHOOD of an outcome occurring. Not what actually happens. And no the two aren't the same. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fultz4thewin 2,464 Report post Posted March 8, 2017 Sounds like you missed the first class. Else you'd know probability is just the LIKELIHOOD of an outcome occurring. Not what actually happens. Sure. But unless you have the power of clairvoyance, all you have to plan on is the likelihood of things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
