Reply With Quote
Well I believe that...oh sorry read the last line. Hope someone can help you.
I've heard multiple good past coaches in the league and some players talk about how a team's compe ive 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 compe ive 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.
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 le 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
You should go kill yourself now. Thank you.
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.
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 le. 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 le. 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.
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.
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.
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 ing lottery.
Even for SpursTalk, that's ignorant. But I like the blackjack imagery.
Last edited by GSH; 03-24-2016 at 03:29 PM.
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 ty 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 .
OP said no casual vanilla fans brah.
OP said no casual vanilla fans brah.
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.
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
A win is a win
Of course its.important
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.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
A win is a win
Of course its.important
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
