Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

2019 NBA Playoffs Thread: Toronto Raptors win NBA title #1.33


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Deamon said:

Yes the result of the series was a coinfilp.  Not sure what you're not understanding here?

Confused on why you'd want such a huge underdog to stand pat? (unless you're fine with second round exits to the likes of Toronto).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Moe. said:

Think about the terrible takes that come out about every single superstar after a year

a year?! ha!

more like after a game. hell, after a play. or a pre or post game comment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Major said:

Confused on why you'd want such a huge underdog to stand pat? (unless you're fine with second round exits to the likes of Toronto).

You seem a little obsessed with being argumentative, but you're stretching here even for you.

Yes we were a big underdog.  Yes I (and most analysts and vegas line setters) were surprised it came down to a buzzer beater in game 7. 

Where did I say I wanted us to stand pat? Because I didn't want the coach fired?  Ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Deamon said:

You seem a little obsessed with being argumentative, but you're stretching here even for you.

Yes we were a big underdog.  Yes I (and most analysts and vegas line setters) were surprised it came down to a buzzer beater in game 7. 

Where did I say I wanted us to stand pat? Because I didn't want the coach fired?  Ok.

"I don't think the sixers should do anything differently regarding next season " sounds complacent.  It's all good though.  I guess it's just part of the process.  

Edited by Major
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Juxtatarot said:

Noel was known to be out a year?  And Saric was expected to stay overseas?  

Edit:  Also the trading of Carter-Williams to stay bad?  (Although he ended up busting.)

it is absolutely false to say that they traded MCW to stay bad.  They realized that he was flawed and had already started to go downhill and had an offer of a premium asset.  Yes, they were valuing the future over the present.  That is different that doing it to intentionally tank.

Edited by Long Ball Larry
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Long Ball Larry said:

it is absolutely false to say that they traded MCW to stay bad.  They realized that he was flawed and had already started to go downhill had an offer of a premium asset.  Yes, they were valuing the future over the present.  That is different that doing it to intentionally tank.

Yea they recognized early on how bad MCW really was. Instead of doubling down on a bad pick, they flipped him for a first down the line. Ask @SWC how good MCW is.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Major said:

"I don't think the sixers should do anything differently regarding next season " sounds complacent.  It's all good though.  I guess it's just part of the process.  

Yes, I said that in regards to firing brown as you can clearly see from the post. But okay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SWC said:

if you are kd do you really want to play with kyrie who is a lot like westbrook in terms of his numbers versus the teams i dont get it why does everyone think that want to play together take that to the bank brohans 

Kyrie was a clutch sidekick and a proven winner as the second best guy on the team.  If he's matured enough to apologize to LeBron for his hissy fit to get out of Cleveland, at least there is a glimmer of hope?  Is Westbrook okay being the #2 guy on the team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tommyboy said:

I'm gingerly going to take Portland in a mild upset tonight.  

As soft as this sounds, it is still going out on a limb.

No KD gives them a decent chance, but it will be a tall order in Oracle after they seemed to find their pre-KD mojo back pretty easily last game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Juxtatarot said:

Draft lottery is tonight.  Chances for Zion:


Knicks: 14%
Cavaliers: 14%
Suns: 14.0%
Bulls: 12.5%
Hawks: 10.5%
Wizards: 9%
Pelicans: 6%
Grizzlies: 6%
Mavericks: 6%
Lakers: 2%
Hornets: 1%
Heat: 1%
Sixers (from Kings): 1%

It would be uncool if the Sixers won.  Lakers too.  I also don't want the Cavs to win because they've had enough #1s in recent history.  My fingers and toes will be staying crossed all day.

Zion to the Knicks is a stone cold lock, IMO. I'd say I'd be happy to be wrong, but the other options kinda suck too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason I asked was after they were eliminated there was a bunch of local chatter and I assumed they "would be better" if that makes any sense..   And I really don't follow the team. I mean I know "enough basics" but don't know all the ins and outs.  I'm guessing the Fultz thing set them back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Insein said:
31 minutes ago, Long Ball Larry said:

it is absolutely false to say that they traded MCW to stay bad.  They realized that he was flawed and had already started to go downhill had an offer of a premium asset.  Yes, they were valuing the future over the present.  That is different that doing it to intentionally tank.

Yea they recognized early on how bad MCW really was. Instead of doubling down on a bad pick, they flipped him for a first down the line. Ask @SWC how good MCW is.

hes so bad that people who are truly terrible at basketball think he stinks on ice take that to the bank brohans 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Vanilla Guerrilla said:
2 hours ago, SWC said:

if you are kd do you really want to play with kyrie who is a lot like westbrook in terms of his numbers versus the teams i dont get it why does everyone think that want to play together take that to the bank brohans 

Kyrie was a clutch sidekick and a proven winner as the second best guy on the team.  If he's matured enough to apologize to LeBron for his hissy fit to get out of Cleveland, at least there is a glimmer of hope?  Is Westbrook okay being the #2 guy on the team?

yeah but i think that kyrie was ok with being a number two not is ok being a number two he went to boston to have it be his team right i dont know if he will be ok or not playing second fiddle again and now that he thinks he is the man i bet it is harder for him to take a back seat but that is just me spitballin take that to the bank brochacho 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deamon said:

People who are against what Sam did keep playing the same safe card where the chances of them being wrong are unlikely.  If they don't win a title, then the tank job was a failure, and you can sit comfortably and say "well who knows, they might have won one if they just kept playing the 8 seed game for years".  It's an easy position to take given how hard it is to win a title and how many things have to line up perfectly to do so. 

Odds are they wouldn't be as good as they are now going the other way, but hey I guess you can say "they might have landed a once in a decade Giannis type player late in the draft"

I understand what you are saying but I was trying to answer the question as best as I possibly could and the best answer is "we don't know". Like I said all of the teams that were better or as good as Philadelphia this season didn't tank. So far the Sixers don't have much to show from it (I mean the East still wasn't all that great this season outside of Milwaukee) and they are already done after cashing in a lot of chips to get Butler and Harris  - but they could take that next step next year and Embid is surely a star with potential to be a top 3 player if he starts taking his fitness more seriously. Where do you draw the line for whether or not it was a success? Can you claim it already?

I do find it ironic that the team that always got crap for not tanking and instead tried to add talent and fight for the 7th/8th spot each year is now the best team in the East (and sure they got lucky with Giannis) - good for them.

Edited by Dr. Octopus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the whole point of tanking is to get a high draft pick for a superstar that can help you win a title.  With that in mind, why don't we look at where those top players were drafted, how they got to their current teams and see if it is really worth it.  (Note, these players are completely chosen and categorized based on nothing other than my opinion)

Players who either already have or could likely lead their team to a championship:

  • Giannis Antetokounmpo - drafted 15th in 2013 by Bucks
  • James Harden - drafted 3rd in 2009 by Thunder, traded to Rockets in 2012
  • Kevin Durant - drafted 2nd in 2007 by Sonics/Thunder, went to Warriors in 2016 as a FA
  • Kawhi Leonard - drafted 15th in 2011 by Spurs, traded to Raptors in 2018
  • Stephen Curry - drafted 7th in 2009 by Warriors
  • LeBron James - drafted 1st in 2003 by Cavs, traded to Miami, signed as a FA with Cavs, then Lakers in 2018

Players who are close and maybe could lead their team to a championship:

  • Nikola Jokic - drafted 41st in 2014 by Nuggets
  • Damian Lillard - drafted 6th in 2012 by Blazers
  • Anthony Davis - drafted 1st in 2012 by Pelicans
  • Joel Embiid - drafted 3rd in 2014 by 76ers
  • Paul George - drafted 10th in 2010 by Pacers, traded to Thunder in 2017 (and resigned)

Players who would likely need to be the #2, but are longshots:

  • Russell Westbrook - drafted 4th in 2008 by Sonics/Thunder
  • Kyrie Irving - drafted 1st in 2011 by Cavs, traded to Celtics in 2017

Average draft position:  8.4 

Percentage still with drafted team:  46%

So looking at this and knowing you need at least one of these guys to win it all, does it make sense to tank?  I'd argue that since over 1/2 these guys are available via trade or free agency and you still have a decent shot at a transcendent star via drafting in the middle-late of the first, it doesn't make a ton of sense.  Basically, I don't think the frustration and disillusionment of the fan base from tanking makes it worth it.

For every team that builds via high draft picks, there is a team that built via trades and free agency.  For every superstar drafted in the top 5, there is a superstar drafted 15th or later.  I don't like the culture and frustration that comes from tanking.

Obviously, the team in question is Philly, and it is far too early to call it a success or failure, but I think there is significant risk to it being a failure...more than there should be after all of the terrible teams the fans have had to endure.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jayrod said:

So, the whole point of tanking is to get a high draft pick for a superstar that can help you win a title.  With that in mind, why don't we look at where those top players were drafted, how they got to their current teams and see if it is really worth it.  (Note, these players are completely chosen and categorized based on nothing other than my opinion)

Players who either already have or could likely lead their team to a championship:

  • Giannis Antetokounmpo - drafted 15th in 2013 by Bucks
  • James Harden - drafted 3rd in 2009 by Thunder, traded to Rockets in 2012
  • Kevin Durant - drafted 2nd in 2007 by Sonics/Thunder, went to Warriors in 2016 as a FA
  • Kawhi Leonard - drafted 15th in 2011 by Spurs, traded to Raptors in 2018
  • Stephen Curry - drafted 7th in 2009 by Warriors
  • LeBron James - drafted 1st in 2003 by Cavs, traded to Miami, signed as a FA with Cavs, then Lakers in 2018

Players who are close and maybe could lead their team to a championship:

  • Nikola Jokic - drafted 41st in 2014 by Nuggets
  • Damian Lillard - drafted 6th in 2012 by Blazers
  • Anthony Davis - drafted 1st in 2012 by Pelicans
  • Joel Embiid - drafted 3rd in 2014 by 76ers
  • Paul George - drafted 10th in 2010 by Pacers, traded to Thunder in 2017 (and resigned)

Players who would likely need to be the #2, but are longshots:

  • Russell Westbrook - drafted 4th in 2008 by Sonics/Thunder
  • Kyrie Irving - drafted 1st in 2011 by Cavs, traded to Celtics in 2017

Average draft position:  8.4 

Percentage still with drafted team:  46%

So looking at this and knowing you need at least one of these guys to win it all, does it make sense to tank?  I'd argue that since over 1/2 these guys are available via trade or free agency and you still have a decent shot at a transcendent star via drafting in the middle-late of the first, it doesn't make a ton of sense.  Basically, I don't think the frustration and disillusionment of the fan base from tanking makes it worth it.

For every team that builds via high draft picks, there is a team that built via trades and free agency.  For every superstar drafted in the top 5, there is a superstar drafted 15th or later.  I don't like the culture and frustration that comes from tanking.

Obviously, the team in question is Philly, and it is far too early to call it a success or failure, but I think there is significant risk to it being a failure...more than there should be after all of the terrible teams the fans have had to endure.

And how many superstars are drafted 15 or later on average per year?  Out of say the 16 first round picks?  1 every 5 years?  So 1 in 80 or so?  Your odds of landing that superstar in the top 5 vs 15 or later is IMMENSELY higher.  No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deamon said:

And how many superstars are drafted 15 or later on average per year?  Out of say the 16 first round picks?  1 every 5 years?  So 1 in 80 or so?  Your odds of landing that superstar in the top 5 vs 15 or later is IMMENSELY higher.  No?

Higher, but not immensely so.

On this list:  7 were top 5 picks (actually all were top 4) and 3 were taken 15th or later (with 3 in between there).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

Yeah, "tank worthy" players don't grow on trees and they aren't available in every draft.  For every Zion, there's a Bennett, Fultz and Oden.  For every KD there's an Evan Turner, Derrick Williams and Hasheen Thabeet. 

Portland has wiffed on 2 hall of famers (jordan, durant) and still managed to make most playoffs, a couple finals,  and several conference championships over the last 30 years in a small market.  You don't have to tank to be good.   It doens't help

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In looking through this, I am wondering why someone doesn't try to do a bit of Moneyball work and get a team of 4-5 second tier guys (lower level all-stars) that would be able to make a serious run at the championship (i.e. 2004 Pistons)?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jayrod said:

Higher, but not immensely so.

On this list:  7 were top 5 picks (actually all were top 4) and 3 were taken 15th or later (with 3 in between there).

Right.  So since 2003 (first name on said list)

Top 5:  7 of 75 = 9.3% of top 5 picks made this 'superstar' list
6-14:   3 of 135 = 2.2% of in between picks made this 'superstar' list
15+:  3 of 240 = 1.2% of picks 15th or later made this 'superstar' list.

Yes, that qualifies as "immensely"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jayrod said:

In looking through this, I am wondering why someone doesn't try to do a bit of Moneyball work and get a team of 4-5 second tier guys (lower level all-stars) that would be able to make a serious run at the championship (i.e. 2004 Pistons)?

Butler, Kemba, Porzingas, Klay, Vucevic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jayrod said:

In looking through this, I am wondering why someone doesn't try to do a bit of Moneyball work and get a team of 4-5 second tier guys (lower level all-stars) that would be able to make a serious run at the championship (i.e. 2004 Pistons)?

feels like a lot of teams are caught up in the idea that you need a star player to market in order to make money. winning basketball teams can go #### themselves. it's just about selling a face.

every year fans of NBA and NFL are crying that their team didn't sign a guy whose name they recognize.. so maybe there's something to the idea that name recognition matters more when people decide to buy merch and follow the team than does a team that wins  :shrug:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jayrod said:

In looking through this, I am wondering why someone doesn't try to do a bit of Moneyball work and get a team of 4-5 second tier guys (lower level all-stars) that would be able to make a serious run at the championship (i.e. 2004 Pistons)?

I don't think it's feasible, those guys make almost as much as the top tier players. I'd love to see what the league would look like if they kept the soft cap but got rid of max contracts. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, tommyboy said:

Portland has wiffed on 2 hall of famers (jordan, durant) and still managed to make most playoffs, a couple finals,  and several conference championships over the last 30 years in a small market.  You don't have to tank to be good.   It doens't help

I feel like injuries struck those two more than Portland whiffed.  They were drafting for need both times and both times the players destroyed their legs (though Oden shredded his celebrating his wealth playing Dance Dance Revolution before he ever played a game).

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, matuski said:

Butler, Kemba, Porzingas, Klay, Vucevic

D'Angelo, Klay, Middleton, Randle, Horford

ETA:  I feel like Kemba & Porzingas will get maxed out and Butler and Klay likely will too.

Edited by Jayrod
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, General Malaise said:

I feel like injuries struck those two more than Portland whiffed.  They were drafting for need both times and both times the players destroyed their legs (though Oden shredded his celebrating his wealth playing Dance Dance Revolution before he ever played a game).

 

 

 

oden was the worst one because they drafted a guy knowingly with injury issues.   Even if he wasn't an injury risk, he wasnt' the better player.   double whiff imo

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Jayrod said:

In looking through this, I am wondering why someone doesn't try to do a bit of Moneyball work and get a team of 4-5 second tier guys (lower level all-stars) that would be able to make a serious run at the championship (i.e. 2004 Pistons)?

Have you ever watched Draymond Green play?  He's more important than 90% of the guys you listed 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Jayrod said:

In looking through this, I am wondering why someone doesn't try to do a bit of Moneyball work and get a team of 4-5 second tier guys (lower level all-stars) that would be able to make a serious run at the championship (i.e. 2004 Pistons)?

In short, the salary cap.  Because you still have to pay lower level all stars the same price as top all stars.  They are all max players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Long Ball Larry said:

 

I don't understand the contradiction.  One can certainly determine if a known outcome was a net benefit without trying to compare to unknown and unknowable alternatives.  The second sentence is a different question entirely, which can certainly be debated.

See Insein's subsequent post on page 52 detailing the difference in this 2nd-round exit as opposed to the previous one for some of the reasons why I would argue that here was a net benefit.

If you are using “net benefit” narrowly to say the team today is better than it was when Hinkie took over, I of course agree. I don’t think one can really say the strategy was a net positive relative to alternative strategic approaches, for the reasons you articulated. And I think it’s also debatable whether tanking was “worth it” in the grand scheme of things; the Sixers are something like 150 games under .500 since 2012, even accounting for these last couple years. 

Despite my general skepticism of the tanking strategy, I would not argue that it was bad for this particular team. As I’ve said before, I went to games the last time your team was in the playoffs, and it certainly appeared that the fan base could not have cared less as a general matter. And apparently the losing seasons weren’t as much of a burden for you guys as it appears to those of us on the outside looking in. But I suspect most fan bases are not similarly situated in that regard. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, tjnc09 said:

Have you ever watched Draymond Green play?  He's more important than 90% of the guys you listed 

I'm as big of a fan of the role player that there is, but no.

Edited by Jayrod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jayrod said:

So, the whole point of tanking is to get a high draft pick for a superstar that can help you win a title.  With that in mind, why don't we look at where those top players were drafted, how they got to their current teams and see if it is really worth it.  (Note, these players are completely chosen and categorized based on nothing other than my opinion)

Players who either already have or could likely lead their team to a championship:

  • Giannis Antetokounmpo - drafted 15th in 2013 by Bucks
  • James Harden - drafted 3rd in 2009 by Thunder, traded to Rockets in 2012
  • Kevin Durant - drafted 2nd in 2007 by Sonics/Thunder, went to Warriors in 2016 as a FA
  • Kawhi Leonard - drafted 15th in 2011 by Spurs, traded to Raptors in 2018
  • Stephen Curry - drafted 7th in 2009 by Warriors
  • LeBron James - drafted 1st in 2003 by Cavs, traded to Miami, signed as a FA with Cavs, then Lakers in 2018

Players who are close and maybe could lead their team to a championship:

  • Nikola Jokic - drafted 41st in 2014 by Nuggets
  • Damian Lillard - drafted 6th in 2012 by Blazers
  • Anthony Davis - drafted 1st in 2012 by Pelicans
  • Joel Embiid - drafted 3rd in 2014 by 76ers
  • Paul George - drafted 10th in 2010 by Pacers, traded to Thunder in 2017 (and resigned)

Players who would likely need to be the #2, but are longshots:

  • Russell Westbrook - drafted 4th in 2008 by Sonics/Thunder
  • Kyrie Irving - drafted 1st in 2011 by Cavs, traded to Celtics in 2017

Average draft position:  8.4 

Percentage still with drafted team:  46%

So looking at this and knowing you need at least one of these guys to win it all, does it make sense to tank?  I'd argue that since over 1/2 these guys are available via trade or free agency and you still have a decent shot at a transcendent star via drafting in the middle-late of the first, it doesn't make a ton of sense.  Basically, I don't think the frustration and disillusionment of the fan base from tanking makes it worth it.

For every team that builds via high draft picks, there is a team that built via trades and free agency.  For every superstar drafted in the top 5, there is a superstar drafted 15th or later.  I don't like the culture and frustration that comes from tanking.

Obviously, the team in question is Philly, and it is far too early to call it a success or failure, but I think there is significant risk to it being a failure...more than there should be after all of the terrible teams the fans have had to endure.

Kawhi was not drafted by the Spurs. He was drafted by the Pacers and traded to the Spurs for George Hill. As a Pacers fan--correcting you involved re-opening a wound that I didn't want to re-open. Uggh.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, tjnc09 said:

Why make a list of guys to win a championship if you don't really want to understand what it takes to win one?

:lmao:

I understand how necessary the whole team is and role players, but you can have all of the Draymond's you want and you ain't winning a single series, much less the championship without someone who can get a bucket when you need it.  As we saw in the Raptors game 7 win, great offense beats great defense more often than not.

Edited by Jayrod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jayrod said:

So, the whole point of tanking is to get a high draft pick for a superstar that can help you win a title.  With that in mind, why don't we look at where those top players were drafted, how they got to their current teams and see if it is really worth it.  (Note, these players are completely chosen and categorized based on nothing other than my opinion)

Players who either already have or could likely lead their team to a championship:

  • Giannis Antetokounmpo - drafted 15th in 2013 by Bucks
  • James Harden - drafted 3rd in 2009 by Thunder, traded to Rockets in 2012
  • Kevin Durant - drafted 2nd in 2007 by Sonics/Thunder, went to Warriors in 2016 as a FA
  • Kawhi Leonard - drafted 15th in 2011 by Spurs, traded to Raptors in 2018
  • Stephen Curry - drafted 7th in 2009 by Warriors
  • LeBron James - drafted 1st in 2003 by Cavs, traded to Miami, signed as a FA with Cavs, then Lakers in 2018

Players who are close and maybe could lead their team to a championship:

  • Nikola Jokic - drafted 41st in 2014 by Nuggets
  • Damian Lillard - drafted 6th in 2012 by Blazers
  • Anthony Davis - drafted 1st in 2012 by Pelicans
  • Joel Embiid - drafted 3rd in 2014 by 76ers
  • Paul George - drafted 10th in 2010 by Pacers, traded to Thunder in 2017 (and resigned)

Players who would likely need to be the #2, but are longshots:

  • Russell Westbrook - drafted 4th in 2008 by Sonics/Thunder
  • Kyrie Irving - drafted 1st in 2011 by Cavs, traded to Celtics in 2017

Average draft position:  8.4 

Percentage still with drafted team:  46%

So looking at this and knowing you need at least one of these guys to win it all, does it make sense to tank?  I'd argue that since over 1/2 these guys are available via trade or free agency and you still have a decent shot at a transcendent star via drafting in the middle-late of the first, it doesn't make a ton of sense.  Basically, I don't think the frustration and disillusionment of the fan base from tanking makes it worth it.

For every team that builds via high draft picks, there is a team that built via trades and free agency.  For every superstar drafted in the top 5, there is a superstar drafted 15th or later.  I don't like the culture and frustration that comes from tanking.

Obviously, the team in question is Philly, and it is far too early to call it a success or failure, but I think there is significant risk to it being a failure...more than there should be after all of the terrible teams the fans have had to endure.

Im not going argue that there are other ways to do it, but 10 of 13 of those players were drafted in the top 7 (and two were number 15).  Regardless of how these specific players got to where they are, the best way to get those players is to be able to draft them and control them.  It room some fairly odd circumstances for some of them to get out of their original teams, though it does seem like more guys are looking to really exert their power and control and be where they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tommyboy said:

oden was the worst one because they drafted a guy knowingly with injury issues.   Even if he wasn't an injury risk, he wasnt' the better player.   double whiff imo

Plus, he was aging in dog years.  Guy looked like he was 30 already, while Durant looked like a pup still.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, modogg said:

i am not a huge CBB fan, so no, i am sure you watched him much more than i did in college. But comparing his college stats to his 3rd year in the NBA is a bit of a false premise as well. One of the biggest slights on SImmons coming into the NBA is that he couldn't play defense. Well he is one of the Sixers best on-ball defenders at this point. 

Fultz also looked good in college and i did see some of his games. Let's just say I would rather have had the college Fultz instead of the one the Sixers had for a few years

I've already went over this argument. The Sixers have better defensive players around him. Put him on a worse team and his defense is exposed big time. I've given the Sixers numerous credit for making sure many of Ben's weaknesses aren't exposed including just how terrible his on ball defense is. 

Fultz had numerous red flags in college. The team even got better after he left. I think its ok if people just say well the scouts got this or that guy totally wrong rather then trying to defend them. I think the NBA needs better scouting overall and more rule changes to eligibility could help. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thecatch said:

If you are using “net benefit” narrowly to say the team today is better than it was when Hinkie took over, I of course agree. I don’t think one can really say the strategy was a net positive relative to alternative strategic approaches, for the reasons you articulated. And I think it’s also debatable whether tanking was “worth it” in the grand scheme of things; the Sixers are something like 150 games under .500 since 2012, even accounting for these last couple years. 

Despite my general skepticism of the tanking strategy, I would not argue that it was bad for this particular team. As I’ve said before, I went to games the last time your team was in the playoffs, and it certainly appeared that the fan base could not have cared less as a general matter. And apparently the losing seasons weren’t as much of a burden for you guys as it appears to those of us on the outside looking in. But I suspect most fan bases are not similarly situated in that regard. 

I guess I would say that the net benefit is that the team is better AND is in a relatively advantageous position moving forward (and really they Were set up to be even better.  They pushed forward too fast when they could had both the short term gains and long term possibilities like the Celtics)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...