Is building a winning and competitive "habit" more important than realism?

I've heard multiple good past coaches in the league and some players talk about how a team's competitive spirit is formed within the organization and through wins ofcourse.

I pose this question because certain mediocre teams who are dealing with so many injuries etc should probably just start tanking.

I'm thinking of memphis who has a winning record despite playing with scrubs...ive heard people talk about how just being competitive has a carry over effect for future seasons. That its great for the development of the mentality of a young player etc.

But are those things worth it over something like getting a better pick?


Please, only guys who are not casual vanilla mainstream average fan can post in this thread. Many thanks.

Well I believe that...oh sorry read the last line. Hope someone can help you.

Memphis almost certainly loses its pick if it misses the playoffs (it's protected for 1-5 and 15-30). They aren't going to tank now.

In general, long-term tanking is deleterious to players, I believe. Philly will probably not be able to become a winning team over night. They are used to losing. Guys are probably starting to tune out Brown. The players are learning to not play through even minor ailments. Free agents aren't going to want to go there, and the ones who do are probably just looking for a paycheck.

You have to show fight like the Lakers and Wolves are if you want to build properly. The biggest thing to building through the draft is proper scouting and development. You can find good players all over the board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apalisoc_9

I've heard multiple good past coaches in the league and some players talk about how a team's competitive spirit is formed within the organization and through wins ofcourse.

I pose this question because certain mediocre teams who are dealing with so many injuries etc should probably just start tanking.

I'm thinking of memphis who has a winning record despite playing with scrubs...ive heard people talk about how just being competitive has a carry over effect for future seasons. That its great for the development of the mentality of a young player etc.

But are those things worth it over something like getting a better pick?


Please, only guys who are not casual vanilla mainstream average fan can post in this thread.
This thread is only for those who need attention by attracting as many gadflies as possible.
Be sure to use your most bizzare thoughts to explain the obvious. May I suggest a new diet and a willingness to delve into hallucinogenic plant biproducts.
Many thanks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Memphis almost certainly loses its pick if it misses the playoffs (it's protected for 1-5 and 15-30). They aren't going to tank now.

In general, long-term tanking is deleterious to players, I believe. Philly will probably not be able to become a winning team over night. They are used to losing. Guys are probably starting to tune out Brown. The players are learning to not play through even minor ailments. Free agents aren't going to want to go there, and the ones who do are probably just looking for a paycheck.

You have to show fight like the Lakers and Wolves are if you want to build properly. The biggest thing to building through the draft is proper scouting and development. You can find good players all over the board.

---

No idea about the memphis pick but just in general i guess...

I mean the average fans has always been boggled why team A is trying to make the playoffs when they have zero chance. I just think that if you're looking to contend in the future and you have a young core you do everything you can to consistently compete...even if you dont make the playoffs.

Its really surprising how much analytics guys have this often times positive facination with hinkie plans...it terrible imo.

Duh

Hey guys does winning the title mean you have to make the playoffs?

Well, nothing good has happened for memphis, dallas, and atlanta really. Atlanta being the best possible example for your topic imho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apalisoc_9

I've heard multiple good past coaches in the league and some players talk about how a team's competitive spirit is formed within the organization and through wins ofcourse.

I pose this question because certain mediocre teams who are dealing with so many injuries etc should probably just start tanking.

I'm thinking of memphis who has a winning record despite playing with scrubs...ive heard people talk about how just being competitive has a carry over effect for future seasons. That its great for the development of the mentality of a young player etc.

But are those things worth it over something like getting a better pick?


Please, only guys who are not casual vanilla mainstream average fan can post in this thread. Many thanks.

---

You should go kill yourself now. Thank you.

The draft is overrated, though. Most players will bust. Even lottery picks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcadian

The draft is overrated, though. Most players will bust. Even lottery picks.

---

Try telling that to the Spurs or Bulls. The draft is what you make it. Rarely will it make a bad team good. But a good front office can leverage it to make a mediocre roster into a contender.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/...6/759/both.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Try telling that to the Spurs or Bulls. The draft is what you make it. Rarely will it make a bad team good. But a good front office can leverage it to make a mediocre roster into a contender.

---

And the Warriors.

It does make a difference to some degree because in the NBA you are only a major player away from winning a title. Look at those mid '00 Lakers who made it to the playoffs pre-Gasol when they were perennial first round losers. I'm convinced those experiences helped guy like Odom,Bynum and the their role players to be prepared for the playoffs. Once they got Gasol it set everything in motion. Also look at the early '00 Pistons. They were a team on paper when you looked at the talent level that should have been a lottery team but they played hard and made it to the playoffs despite not having a chance to be real contenders. That hard work they put in making the playoffs from '02-'04 paid off once they got Sheed and resulted in a title. Even look at the current Warriors that unexpected run they had '13 in the playoffs when they could have decided to tank paved the road for them to be a dominant team. Honestly there is no clear cut answer on whether tanking is better than just being a playoff team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Try telling that to the Spurs or Bulls. The draft is what you make it. Rarely will it make a bad team good. But a good front office can leverage it to make a mediocre roster into a contender.

---

It's mostly a crapshoot. The Spurs were just lucky Duncan was available the same year Robinson went down. If Duncan opted not to play his senior year, we might still be ringless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcadian

It's mostly a crapshoot. The Spurs were just lucky Duncan was available the same year Robinson went down. If Duncan opted not to play his senior year, we might still be ringless.

---

And the Spurs would stuck on four with no future to hope for if they didn't specifically target and trade up for a guy at 15. And who knows how long Tim would have been retired had they not stashed the 27th pick in 2007. Blah, blah Parker. Blah blah Manu.

The Spurs lucked out on Tim. But that's not the whole story at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Memphis almost certainly loses its pick if it misses the playoffs (it's protected for 1-5 and 15-30). They aren't going to tank now.

In general, long-term tanking is deleterious to players, I believe. Philly will probably not be able to become a winning team over night. They are used to losing. Guys are probably starting to tune out Brown. The players are learning to not play through even minor ailments. Free agents aren't going to want to go there, and the ones who do are probably just looking for a paycheck.

You have to show fight like the Lakers and Wolves are if you want to build properly. The biggest thing to building through the draft is proper scouting and development. You can find good players all over the board.

---

Completely agree with you. It takes more than talent to win, you need effort, a system, guys who fit together want to play for each other, etc. It's a recipe. Philly doesn't have it and even draft picks don't want to go there. It's terrible. I think it's fine if your star gets injured and you don't have any talent to do it for one year like NY which wanted to rebuild anyways bc they didn't have players they liked moving forward other than Melo. Also the Pacers, and the didn't try to tank. It's actually a lot quicker to get back into the fight if you were already building a team or had an idea about what you wanted to do. Also the Celtics they rebuilt while getting a good team with young guys through gathering assets, but they also developed a winning culture and are probably a star away, and they are a team a star could possibly want to join.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcadian

It's mostly a crapshoot. The Spurs were just lucky Duncan was available the same year Robinson went down. If Duncan opted not to play his senior year, we might still be ringless.

---

No... it's like playing blackjack. And the lottery has all the aces and face cards

Yes, the Spurs were lucky. Lucky to have a lottery pick.

If Duncan had opted not to play his senior year, another team would have gotten him. In the fucking lottery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcadian

The draft is overrated, though. Most players will bust. Even lottery picks.

---

Even for SpursTalk, that's ignorant. But I like the blackjack imagery.

BTW - I only opened this up because I couldn't believe some serious posters were actually responding to the question of whether winning is better than losing.

Portland stockpiled a bunch of young players, then couldn't afford to keep all of them. Fortunately (joke) Brandon Roy got a career-ending injury, and 50-year old Gred Oden came with one.

Seattle/OKC traded away their best players to get picks and essentially tanked for a couple of seasons to get more. They acquired a bunch of young talent, then couldn't afford to keep all of them. It netted them how many rings? Almost one.

The Celtics tanked, then got shitty ping-pong balls. They came back through shrewd management and trades, but not because of that strategy.

I expect it to work out just as well for Philly. Winning is good. Losing is bad. Water is wet. Apo is an attention whore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

BTW - I only opened this up because I couldn't believe some serious posters were actually responding to the question of whether winning is better than losing.

Portland stockpiled a bunch of young players, then couldn't afford to keep all of them. Fortunately (joke) Brandon Roy got a career-ending injury, and 50-year old Gred Oden came with one.

Seattle/OKC traded away their best players to get picks and essentially tanked for a couple of seasons to get more. They acquired a bunch of young talent, then couldn't afford to keep all of them. It netted them how many rings? Almost one.

The Celtics tanked, then got shitty ping-pong balls. They came back through shrewd management and trades, but not because of that strategy.

I expect it to work out just as well for Philly. Winning is good. Losing is bad. Water is wet. Apo is an attention whore.

---

OP said no casual vanilla fans brah. :td

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dabom

OP said no casual vanilla fans brah. :td

---

And every time the OP tells you to sniff his ass, you do it. I don't roll that way.

Good question . . .

Long term losing, particularly at a historic level, is extremely difficult to recover from. Not only does the stench become so deeply ingrained throughout the organization, that if often kills the confidence of the young core players, but it destroys the brand in every possible way.

That being said, you generally need at least one all time great player to win a championship(s), in every sport and by far the easiest way to attain one is by getting as high a pick as possible in the draft.

The Spurs model is not repeatable and as much as good scouting, developing and luck, helped to prolong the dynasty, it all would have been for naught if not for Duncan.

So ideally you want to sink to or near the bottom for a couple of years, land at least one Hall-of-Fame player, nail a few lesser moves in that time and begin to show modest, but steady progress, in short order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

Good question . . .

Long term losing, particularly at a historic level, is extremely difficult to recover from. Not only does the stench become so deeply ingrained throughout the organization, that if often kills the confidence of the young core players, but it destroys the brand in every possible way.

That being said, you generally need at least one all time great player to win a championship(s), in every sport and by far the easiest way to attain one is by getting as high a pick as possible in the draft.

The Spurs model is not repeatable and as much as good scouting, developing and luck, helped to prolong the dynasty, it all would have been for naught if not for Duncan.

So ideally you want to sink to or near the bottom for a couple of years, land at least one Hall-of-Fame player, nail a few lesser moves in that time and begin to show modest, but steady progress, in short order.

---

The danger with staying on the bottom for one or two years is that habitual lossing and what comes with it can be very detrimental for younger players. It's also statistically improbable to land a hall of fame player in a two year span.

It's pretty aparent that teams like Bulls-Grizz etc would rather stay mediocre and hope they can land somone off free agency or hit Gold in a later pick

The spurs model is impossible to repeat. Sure, you can draft good players but I doubt even San Anoonio knew Parker ans Ginobili was going to be this good.

I'm also not surprsied that its the same Low IQ poster that cant seem to comprehend the complexity of the question in hand. I wish the forum didnt have these low quality posters :lol

A win is a win :lol
Of course its.important :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apalisoc_9

The danger with staying on the bottom for one or two years is that habitual lossing and what comes with it can be very detrimental for younger players. It's also statistically improbable to land a hall of fame player in a two year span.

It's pretty aparent that teams like Bulls-Grizz etc would rather stay mediocre and hope they can land somone off free agency or hit Gold in a later pick

The spurs model is impossible to repeat. Sure, you can draft good players but I doubt even San Anoonio knew Parker ans Ginobili was going to be this good.

I'm also not surprsied that its the same Low IQ poster that cant seem to comprehend the complexity of the question in hand. I wish the forum didnt have these low quality posters :lol

A win is a win :lol
Of course its.important :lol

---

I don't think it sets in that quickly. It's when it becomes 3 or more years because at that point, with the amount of player movement in sports today, it basically becomes an era or generation of your organization that's known nothing but losing.

It's statistically improbable to build a championship team period. As I said, this is in an ideal scenario.

Yeah, the media lauded the Grizzlies and Pacers a few years ago for being relatively successful without sinking to the bottom, but all it got them was a sub championship ceiling.

Exactly. The Spurs didn't know Ginobili, Parker and Leonard would be this good. Even Duncan, as great a prospect as he was, I don't think people thought he'd end up on the short list of greatest players ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apalisoc_9

No idea about the memphis pick but just in general i guess...

I mean the average fans has always been boggled why team A is trying to make the playoffs when they have zero chance. I just think that if you're looking to contend in the future and you have a young core you do everything you can to consistently compete...even if you dont make the playoffs.

Its really surprising how much analytics guys have this often times positive facination with hinkie plans...it terrible imo.

---

Agreed, because the numbers take away the human factor. could you get a higher "pick" if you tank and miss the playoffs on purpose? sure. But your young guys will then have no playoff experience. remember that the Warriors once unseated the #1 mavs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

If Duncan had opted not to play his senior year, another team would have gotten him. In the fucking lottery.

---

Even if you win a lottery pick, your chances of getting a franchise player are very small. Smaller than what people seem to think. The draft lottery is just playing for a small chance to have a small chance at a great player. Duncan is the rare exception to tanking-for-the-lottery working out. In that single season, they knew Duncan would be available, so they tanked for him. He was a rare player who everyone knew would be a Hall of Famer. Over a longer time window, a player like that is so rare that it's hardly worth "blindly tanking" in the hopes of landing one.

Maybe you'll agree with a more moderate statement: the draft isn't as reliable as people believe because it's difficult to predict how players will develop over the course of 10-20 years. I'm not even criticizing GMs here; it's inherently a difficult job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcadian

Even if you win a lottery pick, your chances of getting a franchise player are very small. Smaller than what people seem to think. The draft lottery is just playing for a small chance to have a small chance at a great player. I'm sure you know how probability works. p(A+B) = p(A)*p(B). Duncan is the rare exception to tanking-for-the-lottery working out. In that single season, they knew Duncan would be available, so they tanked for him. And he was a rare player who everyone knew would be a Hall of Famer. Over a longer time window, a player like that is so rare that it's hardly worth "blindly tanking" in the hopes of landing one.

I'm frankly surprised that more people aren't agreeing with this. Maybe you'll be more likely to agree if I make a more moderate statement: the draft isn't as reliable as people believe because it's difficult to predict how players will develop over the course of 10-20 years. I'm not even criticizing GMs here; it's inherently a difficult job.

---

Lebron Blake KD Wade AD(overrated) are all franchise players

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcadian

Even if you win a lottery pick, your chances of getting a franchise player are very small. Smaller than what people seem to think. The draft lottery is just playing for a small chance to have a small chance at a great player. I'm sure you know how probability works. p(A+B) = p(A)*p(B). Duncan is the rare exception to tanking-for-the-lottery working out. In that single season, they knew Duncan would be available, so they tanked for him. And he was a rare player who everyone knew would be a Hall of Famer. Over a longer time window, a player like that is so rare that it's hardly worth "blindly tanking" in the hopes of landing one.

I'm frankly surprised that more people aren't agreeing with this. Maybe you'll be more likely to agree if I make a more moderate statement: the draft isn't as reliable as people believe because it's difficult to predict how players will develop over the course of 10-20 years. I'm not even criticizing GMs here; it's inherently a difficult job.

---

Lebron Blake KD Wade AD(overrated) are all franchise players

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 100%duncan

Lebron Blake KD Wade AD(overrated) are all franchise players

---

Of those, only Lebron is on Duncan's level. Wade only won titles as a sidekick. The rest haven't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcadian

Of those, only Lebron is on Duncan's level. Wade only won titles as a sidekick. The rest haven't.

---

Never said they were. Just refuting what you said that the chances of getting a franchise player in the draft is very small which is imho untrue since there have been a handful although not all are that successful yet.

Also, wade won as alpha in 06, wouldve been fmvp in 2011 if lebron stopped choking. But thats beyond my point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcadian

Even if you win a lottery pick, your chances of getting a franchise player are very small. Smaller than what people seem to think. The draft lottery is just playing for a small chance to have a small chance at a great player. Duncan is the rare exception to tanking-for-the-lottery working out. In that single season, they knew Duncan would be available, so they tanked for him. He was a rare player who everyone knew would be a Hall of Famer. Over a longer time window, a player like that is so rare that it's hardly worth "blindly tanking" in the hopes of landing one.

Maybe you'll agree with a more moderate statement: the draft isn't as reliable as people believe because it's difficult to predict how players will develop over the course of 10-20 years. I'm not even criticizing GMs here; it's inherently a difficult job.

---

Duncan was an obvious choice because he had stayed for 4 years in college and everyone knew exactly how good he was, what he could do and that it would translate to the NBA level easily right away. It was very different and much less risky than with the one and done players that usually get picked more on potential.

I think the competitive habit is always important, especially to the NBA at large. Mediocre teams with a good culture can start to build into contenders and attract some decent players in free agency.

Buildinv a good culture focussed on success will attract more talent. Then because your culture is good, it means when you get your talent, you can turn that into playoff runs.

That culture is important for the long-term. Talent can't sustain itself forever. That's why no team gets good and stays good on talent alone - it's what that idiot Morey has been doing in Houston for ages now and it won't ever work. McDonough started the trend in Phoenix now too.

Morey/McDonough just sells out whoever he can to get the biggest names and then tries to get as many people on the roster who parse well on an analytics spreadsheet. The result is always the same: a bunch of underachieving (relative to talent and potential) NBA misfits. Prospects aren't treated with respect to room for growth - they're just trading chips.

Teams like Charlotte, Boston, Indiana, Toronto, Pistons have been building their philosophies for the long haul. They're doing well now and while they're not world-beaters just yet, they've all got some real futures ahead because they've stayed focussed on good winning habits for the last few years and it's paying off.