[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Imagine tanking
Author Thread
CrushAlot
Posts: 55263
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/25/2003
Member: #452
USA
9/10/2017  3:47 PM
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
knicks1248 wrote:
fishmike wrote:
knicks1248 wrote:
fishmike wrote:
GustavBahler wrote:
knicks1248 wrote:
fishmike wrote:
knicks1248 wrote:Letting young players go out and play through their consistent mistakes, is the worst way to develop. I remember when MDA was ask if he would let LIN play through his mistakes, after a 9 turnover game (we still won) and he said normally he wouldn't, but we had no other pg option.

Well 3 wks later MIAMI capitalize on LINS mistakes, the scouting report was out on him, and he was never the same player.
When you let young players play through mistake, it takes much, longer to develop.

Similar to the way no ones taking time to teach KP how defend without fouling (just letting him play through it)and now he's overseas doing the same thing..smh

you look at the 1:09 mark of this clip, he's jumping in the air 8 feet from the hoop trying to block a layup, instead of just putting his hands up and taking a charge. He ends up crashing to the floor, and getting called for a foul.

nice to see you pick one play and say SMH. Go look at the blocks from his last game. A few he never left his feet. How old is KP? Oh yea... 21. Right around junior in college age. You have no perspective. smh

stop using his age as an excuse for everything he's doing wrong, the dude has been playing professionally (4 yrs)long before any of these 21 yr olds in the nba..

Im not making this stuff up, he was tops in the NBA in fouls, very silly ones at it. When you constantly see the same idiotic fouls game after game, your going to chalk it up to age after 2 yrs in the Nba, and 4 overseas...cmon fish...that just poor development

2 years in the league, 3 different coaches, two different rosters. The defensive coach is one of the worst Head Coaches in NBA history, you know that. You arent factoring in that Porzingis's development by this franchise has been sketchy at best. Doesnt mean KP cant or wont improve defensively. You are really jumping the gun here.

He finds new ways to make no sense at all. With no perspective. There is a new front office for starters and KP has had 3 coaches in two years and still continued to get better and improve.

The same guy who had everything to do with this roster is still here with even more power, how exactly is that a new FO. Is that because we added perry.

I get it, you're a knick fan, and you're being optimistic.

Trust me when i say, I hope I'm so wrong about mills, but i seriously doubt it. One thing Im very confident about, is that the coaching staff is not right for the direction of this team.

To me signing THJ before you signed a play making veteran pg, was like buying the carriage and having to settle for a pony to pull it because you had no more money for a horse. Thats ass backwards

Mills had everything to do with this roster? That is even more made up than your KP leads the NBA in fouls. Rambis actually made all the choices.

I hope you're being sarcastic. Walt Frazier and breen kept reminding us every game that KP was leading the league in fouls right up until he got injured.

The question you keep avoiding is weather or not you feel we have the best coaching staff and front office in place to build, teach, develop, and lead this franchise to the next level in 2 to 3 yrs

I don't know how you equate a new front office as being in place when only one person has been replace.
If Griffin got the job, you and i both know majority of the front office would have followed Phill or been demoted.
To me, that would have been classified as change. If mills is continuing from where phill left off (like some you have claimed)what's NEW?

Perry is slight breath of fresh air, but we'll see how much impact he has in the coming days.

We will learn a LOT more about this coaching staff from here on. For one thing the combination of DRose and Jennings turned out to be a huge part of the resistance along with Melo! Minus some of them and replacing them with more compliant players WILL make a difference! Not to mention the effort level and buy in should help improve execution a great deal on both ends

The Front Office has a good deal of new blood. The fact that Mills may be continuing SOME aspects of what Phil was doing doesn't mean there's no change. Clearly Mills has his own ideas which have already been demonstrated. Perry and his people will bring different ideas and approach as well.

If you stop being convinced things won't improve you might be able to see the opportunities for positive change that exist. There are no guarantees but from what I see there's already been some positive changes. The focus is on not just this season but the future.

I think things were pretty messy last year. I am not sure how you could add more compliant players then a group that consisted of 8 undrafted players, and only 5 guys that were drafted in the first round. The roster was made up of guys just trying to stay in the league. It seemed like Jax was thinking about bringing Rose back,
According to several local media sources, Phil Jackson was greatly impressed with Derrick Rose’s testimony in his exit interview. Plus, Rose has publicly stated that he sincerely wants to return to New York.
https://www.fanragsports.com/knicks/rosen-knicks-re-sign-derrick-rose/
I think moving on from Rose was the right move. I also don't think his presence helped KP but only one guy skipped his exit meeting and now we know that at least in part it was because of issues with the coach. I don't think all was fixed with Rose and Jax leaving. I am concerned about Jeff/Rambis after everything that happened last year. Woj reported that players hate Rambis. Rosen said on a podcast that Minny ruined Rambis and that he isn't able to relate to players. Woj seems to enjoy going after Phil but Rosen is Phil's guy. I wish things were cleaned up a bit more (i.e. Melo gone, Rambis gone and possibly Jeff gone). The issues between KP and Jeff were significant. Aside from the undrafted guys, I am not sure what guys on the roster last year were Jeff guys. In my opinion major problems were only partially addressed.

The ball handlers to start were DRose and Jennings and they along with Melo mounted a MUTINY!!! How the F is that compliant? Yeah we can do a heck of a lot better in terms of players BUYING IN and executing what the coaches want. We can get better Effort Level too!

IMO all the other stuff you bring up is being overstated. Part of KP's deal was wanting to do what he's done this summer. The National Team and Videos! Building his brand and profile as a national hero. I don't expect KP will have any major issues with the coaches. I don't think any of this stuff that's been reported is as serious or unresolvable as you're trying to make it seem.

I wish it was as simple as, just take care of the three villains and everything will be fixed. Melo is coming back. KP and Jeff did have issues and KP did skip his exit meeting and not respond to Jeff's texts earlier in the summer. Rambis isn't liked by the players. The Knicks finally have some roster/coaching continuity heading into a season where they probably would have been better off moving on from some of their players and coaches.

The only time KP showed any problems on the court came after his Achilles injury. By the end of the year KP was on an upswing until tweaking his back in Boston. I don't think or expect KP to come to camp with any lingering issues that would stop him from performing at his best.

You're stuck on this meanwhile the players and coaches are busy preparing for the new season. Jeff and KP can work on their communication all Camp and Preseason. IMO you're making a bit too much of this issue. No doubt KP felt some kinda way but I don't think it's something irreparable.

I am not just talking about KP. There are 14 other guys and a coaching staff that were a part of the dysfunctional locker room last year. Melo is coming back. Players don't like Rambis. I don't think all of the problems were Rose, Jennings, Longstaff and PJax. The more things have come out about the season, the more I think that Jeff lost the team last year. I don't think Jeff just has to workout things with KP. I think he has to work things out with the guys that were on the team last year.
I think we know what we're doing..... Phil Jackson
AUTOADVERT
Knickoftime
Posts: 23205
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

9/10/2017  5:42 PM    LAST EDITED: 9/10/2017  5:51 PM
HofstraBBall wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:What a weird turn this conversation has taken.

That the higher you pick in the NBA draft, the demonstratively better your chances of getting an impact player is has already been litigated and ruled on. It is an objective fact.

As it applies to the Knicks, this has never been a choice between legitimately competing or losing as many games as possible to get a top pick. That's a false pretense.

This is a choice between the likely non-man's land of 31-37 wins - the new normal with Melo - and seeing what happens without him.

Good or bad, inevitable life without him will be a transition/adjustment. If that happens in 2017-18, two things may occur:

1.) The Knick young core may perform better than expected without him and get a whole year under the belt transitioning, in which case, great.

or

2.) The inevitable transition may be difficult and they may qualify for a higher (better) lottery pick than they likely would've qualified for with Melo.

In which case, great.

You brought up the draft not being a crap shoot? Specifically 5 vs 10 vs 20 . Most agree that top 3 picks are the true game changers..

I responded to notion the draft was crap shoot. Doesn't matter what most people agree, the fact of the facts.

As a whole 1 through 30, it is a crapshoot. The higher you get up, the less it becomes a crapshoot, which is the precisely the reason why if you're going to be in the lottery it's best to be higher up in the lottery.

Knicks needing to move on from Melo is not being argued by anyone on here except maybe 2 posters. So why keep presenting the same case?

I'm responding to those 2 posters.

I thought that was the whole idea.

Knickoftime
Posts: 23205
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

9/10/2017  5:49 PM
Welpee wrote:The question is whether tanking and betting on two things happening simultaneously is the best way to build a team: 1) you lose enough to have highest chance with the ping pong balls yielding the top pick and 2) betting that the particular draft that you have the #1 pick yields an all-time franchise building player.

I think this speaks to the fundamental misunderstanding going on here. Most teams that "tank" aren't choosing between making the postseason and getting the most lottery balls, they're maximizing the number of lottery balls they were going to get anyway. That's a big difference.

ONE team, who WERE already a lottery team when "the process" started (and started because they were a lottery team) took it to the extreme.

As it pertains to the Knicks it's not a multi-year strategy. It's 'Since we're going to be in the lottery in 2018 anyway and since Melo is out the door anyway.'

nixluva
Posts: 55289
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
9/10/2017  11:15 PM
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
knicks1248 wrote:
fishmike wrote:
knicks1248 wrote:
fishmike wrote:
GustavBahler wrote:
knicks1248 wrote:
fishmike wrote:
knicks1248 wrote:Letting young players go out and play through their consistent mistakes, is the worst way to develop. I remember when MDA was ask if he would let LIN play through his mistakes, after a 9 turnover game (we still won) and he said normally he wouldn't, but we had no other pg option.

Well 3 wks later MIAMI capitalize on LINS mistakes, the scouting report was out on him, and he was never the same player.
When you let young players play through mistake, it takes much, longer to develop.

Similar to the way no ones taking time to teach KP how defend without fouling (just letting him play through it)and now he's overseas doing the same thing..smh

you look at the 1:09 mark of this clip, he's jumping in the air 8 feet from the hoop trying to block a layup, instead of just putting his hands up and taking a charge. He ends up crashing to the floor, and getting called for a foul.

nice to see you pick one play and say SMH. Go look at the blocks from his last game. A few he never left his feet. How old is KP? Oh yea... 21. Right around junior in college age. You have no perspective. smh

stop using his age as an excuse for everything he's doing wrong, the dude has been playing professionally (4 yrs)long before any of these 21 yr olds in the nba..

Im not making this stuff up, he was tops in the NBA in fouls, very silly ones at it. When you constantly see the same idiotic fouls game after game, your going to chalk it up to age after 2 yrs in the Nba, and 4 overseas...cmon fish...that just poor development

2 years in the league, 3 different coaches, two different rosters. The defensive coach is one of the worst Head Coaches in NBA history, you know that. You arent factoring in that Porzingis's development by this franchise has been sketchy at best. Doesnt mean KP cant or wont improve defensively. You are really jumping the gun here.

He finds new ways to make no sense at all. With no perspective. There is a new front office for starters and KP has had 3 coaches in two years and still continued to get better and improve.

The same guy who had everything to do with this roster is still here with even more power, how exactly is that a new FO. Is that because we added perry.

I get it, you're a knick fan, and you're being optimistic.

Trust me when i say, I hope I'm so wrong about mills, but i seriously doubt it. One thing Im very confident about, is that the coaching staff is not right for the direction of this team.

To me signing THJ before you signed a play making veteran pg, was like buying the carriage and having to settle for a pony to pull it because you had no more money for a horse. Thats ass backwards

Mills had everything to do with this roster? That is even more made up than your KP leads the NBA in fouls. Rambis actually made all the choices.

I hope you're being sarcastic. Walt Frazier and breen kept reminding us every game that KP was leading the league in fouls right up until he got injured.

The question you keep avoiding is weather or not you feel we have the best coaching staff and front office in place to build, teach, develop, and lead this franchise to the next level in 2 to 3 yrs

I don't know how you equate a new front office as being in place when only one person has been replace.
If Griffin got the job, you and i both know majority of the front office would have followed Phill or been demoted.
To me, that would have been classified as change. If mills is continuing from where phill left off (like some you have claimed)what's NEW?

Perry is slight breath of fresh air, but we'll see how much impact he has in the coming days.

We will learn a LOT more about this coaching staff from here on. For one thing the combination of DRose and Jennings turned out to be a huge part of the resistance along with Melo! Minus some of them and replacing them with more compliant players WILL make a difference! Not to mention the effort level and buy in should help improve execution a great deal on both ends

The Front Office has a good deal of new blood. The fact that Mills may be continuing SOME aspects of what Phil was doing doesn't mean there's no change. Clearly Mills has his own ideas which have already been demonstrated. Perry and his people will bring different ideas and approach as well.

If you stop being convinced things won't improve you might be able to see the opportunities for positive change that exist. There are no guarantees but from what I see there's already been some positive changes. The focus is on not just this season but the future.

I think things were pretty messy last year. I am not sure how you could add more compliant players then a group that consisted of 8 undrafted players, and only 5 guys that were drafted in the first round. The roster was made up of guys just trying to stay in the league. It seemed like Jax was thinking about bringing Rose back,
According to several local media sources, Phil Jackson was greatly impressed with Derrick Rose’s testimony in his exit interview. Plus, Rose has publicly stated that he sincerely wants to return to New York.
https://www.fanragsports.com/knicks/rosen-knicks-re-sign-derrick-rose/
I think moving on from Rose was the right move. I also don't think his presence helped KP but only one guy skipped his exit meeting and now we know that at least in part it was because of issues with the coach. I don't think all was fixed with Rose and Jax leaving. I am concerned about Jeff/Rambis after everything that happened last year. Woj reported that players hate Rambis. Rosen said on a podcast that Minny ruined Rambis and that he isn't able to relate to players. Woj seems to enjoy going after Phil but Rosen is Phil's guy. I wish things were cleaned up a bit more (i.e. Melo gone, Rambis gone and possibly Jeff gone). The issues between KP and Jeff were significant. Aside from the undrafted guys, I am not sure what guys on the roster last year were Jeff guys. In my opinion major problems were only partially addressed.

The ball handlers to start were DRose and Jennings and they along with Melo mounted a MUTINY!!! How the F is that compliant? Yeah we can do a heck of a lot better in terms of players BUYING IN and executing what the coaches want. We can get better Effort Level too!

IMO all the other stuff you bring up is being overstated. Part of KP's deal was wanting to do what he's done this summer. The National Team and Videos! Building his brand and profile as a national hero. I don't expect KP will have any major issues with the coaches. I don't think any of this stuff that's been reported is as serious or unresolvable as you're trying to make it seem.

I wish it was as simple as, just take care of the three villains and everything will be fixed. Melo is coming back. KP and Jeff did have issues and KP did skip his exit meeting and not respond to Jeff's texts earlier in the summer. Rambis isn't liked by the players. The Knicks finally have some roster/coaching continuity heading into a season where they probably would have been better off moving on from some of their players and coaches.

The only time KP showed any problems on the court came after his Achilles injury. By the end of the year KP was on an upswing until tweaking his back in Boston. I don't think or expect KP to come to camp with any lingering issues that would stop him from performing at his best.

You're stuck on this meanwhile the players and coaches are busy preparing for the new season. Jeff and KP can work on their communication all Camp and Preseason. IMO you're making a bit too much of this issue. No doubt KP felt some kinda way but I don't think it's something irreparable.

I am not just talking about KP. There are 14 other guys and a coaching staff that were a part of the dysfunctional locker room last year. Melo is coming back. Players don't like Rambis. I don't think all of the problems were Rose, Jennings, Longstaff and PJax. The more things have come out about the season, the more I think that Jeff lost the team last year. I don't think Jeff just has to workout things with KP. I think he has to work things out with the guys that were on the team last year.

You do know they actually SPOKE with everyone else at the end of the season right? If things were as bad as you say I doubt they bring BOTH Jeff and Rambis back. One thing you might be overlooking is that the Media reports may not be true or as bad as they presented it.

You have to acknowledge that you're going mostly on the word of Media. The people involved haven't said exactly what happened. What has been said is that KP looks forward to next season and nothing negative has been said since Phil left.

This photo is the latest suggestion that Porzingis seems back on board with the Knicks after the team fired team president Phil Jackson on June 28. On the same day Jackson was fired, Porzingis followed Knicks lottery pick Frank Ntilikina on Instagram and liked a few of his photos, the first clue to him putting the Knicks’ turmoil behind him.

Porzingis’ offseason got off to a rocky start after he bailed on his exit interview at the end of the season, causing Jackson to entertain the idea of trading Porzingis before the draft.

But shortly following the Zen Master’s exit, head coach Jeff Hornacek tried to stifle the trade talk and insisted the Knicks never seriously considering dealing the 7-foot-3 forward.

“I think it was out there that Phil was listening, but he wasn’t out shopping KP,” Hornacek said. “We love KP and what he does, so I don’t see him going anywhere.”

http://nypost.com/2017/07/07/kristaps-porzingis-drops-biggest-clue-he-loves-knicks-again/amp/

“So far it’s been tough in New York, but my journey is only beginning and I hope to stay there my whole career,’’ Porzingis told NBA.com. “So as a city, we can have some fun and win some games and do something big. For me, it’s now home.’’

It’s not the first time Porzingis has spoken about his desire to stick with the Knicks after his protest over how former team president Phil Jackson was running the franchise chaotically. After blowing off his exit meeting with Jackson in mid-April, Porzingis told The Post before leaving for Latvia that he wants to remain with the club.

“I love New York, I love New York,’’ Porzingis said.

http://nypost.com/2017/08/02/kristaps-porzingis-is-back-to-loving-knicks-for-life/amp/
Welpee
Posts: 21621
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/22/2016
Member: #6239

9/11/2017  7:28 AM
Knickoftime wrote:
Welpee wrote:The question is whether tanking and betting on two things happening simultaneously is the best way to build a team: 1) you lose enough to have highest chance with the ping pong balls yielding the top pick and 2) betting that the particular draft that you have the #1 pick yields an all-time franchise building player.

I think this speaks to the fundamental misunderstanding going on here. Most teams that "tank" aren't choosing between making the postseason and getting the most lottery balls, they're maximizing the number of lottery balls they were going to get anyway. That's a big difference.

ONE team, who WERE already a lottery team when "the process" started (and started because they were a lottery team) took it to the extreme.

As it pertains to the Knicks it's not a multi-year strategy. It's 'Since we're going to be in the lottery in 2018 anyway and since Melo is out the door anyway.'

There's no misunderstanding and nobody mentioned the postseason versus more lottery balls. The issue is going into a season intentionally not trying to win, meaning making no effort to put the best possible team on the court to win the most games. I bet there are far more teams that go into a season saying "we're not going to make the playoffs so lets try to lose as many games as possible" who remain losers after the "process" than the handful of teams over the past 30+ years people always site has their example of tanking that worked.

And as has been mentioned previously, there's also a difference between making a decision to develop young talent than tanking. In my opinion teams who try to do things the right way are rewarded far more than teams who purposely tank. Just look at us in 2015. By losing more games we could've ended up with Okafor or Russell instead of KP.

Knickoftime
Posts: 23205
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

9/11/2017  10:10 AM
Welpee wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
Welpee wrote:The question is whether tanking and betting on two things happening simultaneously is the best way to build a team: 1) you lose enough to have highest chance with the ping pong balls yielding the top pick and 2) betting that the particular draft that you have the #1 pick yields an all-time franchise building player.

I think this speaks to the fundamental misunderstanding going on here. Most teams that "tank" aren't choosing between making the postseason and getting the most lottery balls, they're maximizing the number of lottery balls they were going to get anyway. That's a big difference.

ONE team, who WERE already a lottery team when "the process" started (and started because they were a lottery team) took it to the extreme.

As it pertains to the Knicks it's not a multi-year strategy. It's 'Since we're going to be in the lottery in 2018 anyway and since Melo is out the door anyway.'

There's no misunderstanding and nobody mentioned the postseason versus more lottery balls. The issue is going into a season intentionally not trying to win, meaning making no effort to put the best possible team on the court to win the most games. I bet there are far more teams that go into a season saying "we're not going to make the playoffs so lets try to lose as many games as possible" who remain losers after the "process" than the handful of teams over the past 30+ years people always site has their example of tanking that worked.

It may be more challenging to demonstrate that than you realize.

Olajuwon, Duncan, Lebron James, and Westbrook are all players that were acquired by some level of "tanking." The post-Curry Warriors also tanked and while it only netted them Harrison Barnes, it clearly didn't impede their development.

And as has been mentioned previously, there's also a difference between making a decision to develop young talent than tanking. In my opinion teams who try to do things the right way are rewarded far more than teams who purposely tank.

Okay fair enough, what is the specific mechanism by which the reward occurs? What specifically occurs differently when you do things the right way in greater frequency?

Welpee
Posts: 21621
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/22/2016
Member: #6239

9/11/2017  11:04 AM
Knickoftime wrote:
Welpee wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
Welpee wrote:The question is whether tanking and betting on two things happening simultaneously is the best way to build a team: 1) you lose enough to have highest chance with the ping pong balls yielding the top pick and 2) betting that the particular draft that you have the #1 pick yields an all-time franchise building player.

I think this speaks to the fundamental misunderstanding going on here. Most teams that "tank" aren't choosing between making the postseason and getting the most lottery balls, they're maximizing the number of lottery balls they were going to get anyway. That's a big difference.

ONE team, who WERE already a lottery team when "the process" started (and started because they were a lottery team) took it to the extreme.

As it pertains to the Knicks it's not a multi-year strategy. It's 'Since we're going to be in the lottery in 2018 anyway and since Melo is out the door anyway.'

There's no misunderstanding and nobody mentioned the postseason versus more lottery balls. The issue is going into a season intentionally not trying to win, meaning making no effort to put the best possible team on the court to win the most games. I bet there are far more teams that go into a season saying "we're not going to make the playoffs so lets try to lose as many games as possible" who remain losers after the "process" than the handful of teams over the past 30+ years people always site has their example of tanking that worked.

It may be more challenging to demonstrate that than you realize.

Olajuwon, Duncan, Lebron James, and Westbrook are all players that were acquired by some level of "tanking." The post-Curry Warriors also tanked and while it only netted them Harrison Barnes, it clearly didn't impede their development.

And as has been mentioned previously, there's also a difference between making a decision to develop young talent than tanking. In my opinion teams who try to do things the right way are rewarded far more than teams who purposely tank.

Okay fair enough, what is the specific mechanism by which the reward occurs? What specifically occurs differently when you do things the right way in greater frequency?

I don't know about Westbrook/OKC as an example, but three players in 30+ years and that"s the blue print people want to bank on? And it's interesting that you referenced Duncan because the Celtics had two picks in that draft and tanked figuring they had two shots at getting the first pick and ended up with Billups (pre becoming "Mr. Big Shot") and Ron Mercer. Didn't exactly work out for them.
Knickoftime
Posts: 23205
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

9/11/2017  11:30 AM    LAST EDITED: 9/11/2017  11:31 AM
Welpee wrote:I don't know about Westbrook/OKC as an example, but three players in 30+ years and that"s the blue print people want to bank on?

For one there is no 'banking' on anything. NBA history tells us big free agent acquisitions is a very iffy proposition. Acquiring talent is VERY hard, by any method. The NBA is not a parity league, whatever version you employ, the odds are against you.

For every team that "tanked" and didn't succeed, I am certain I can name you one that went all for free agents one year and didn't succeed, and others that tried every year, and we're still perennial lottery teams.

And not for nothing, but, again, nobody is arguing the Knicks should bank on that blueprint.

And it's interesting that you referenced Duncan because the Celtics had two picks in that draft and tanked figuring they had two shots at getting the first pick and ended up with Billups (pre becoming "Mr. Big Shot") and Ron Mercer. Didn't exactly work out for them.

Nope. But can you think ANY teams that did it right, genuinely tried, and it still didn't/hasn't worked out for them? I can name A LOT off the top my head. I bet you can too.

I see a lot of confirmation bias in this thread, what I haven't seen is a lot of actual analysis.

And I still like to know what is the actual, tangible thing that happens when you do it the right way that leads to better results?

Welpee
Posts: 21621
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/22/2016
Member: #6239

9/11/2017  4:29 PM
Knickoftime wrote:
Welpee wrote:I don't know about Westbrook/OKC as an example, but three players in 30+ years and that"s the blue print people want to bank on?

For one there is no 'banking' on anything. NBA history tells us big free agent acquisitions is a very iffy proposition. Acquiring talent is VERY hard, by any method. The NBA is not a parity league, whatever version you employ, the odds are against you.

For every team that "tanked" and didn't succeed, I am certain I can name you one that went all for free agents one year and didn't succeed, and others that tried every year, and we're still perennial lottery teams.

And not for nothing, but, again, nobody is arguing the Knicks should bank on that blueprint.

And it's interesting that you referenced Duncan because the Celtics had two picks in that draft and tanked figuring they had two shots at getting the first pick and ended up with Billups (pre becoming "Mr. Big Shot") and Ron Mercer. Didn't exactly work out for them.

Nope. But can you think ANY teams that did it right, genuinely tried, and it still didn't/hasn't worked out for them? I can name A LOT off the top my head. I bet you can too.

I see a lot of confirmation bias in this thread, what I haven't seen is a lot of actual analysis.

And I still like to know what is the actual, tangible thing that happens when you do it the right way that leads to better results?

Much of the conversation on this subject is anecdotal, hyperbole, and out of context analytics. But other than the Patriots/Bill Belichick I can't think of any teams who actively cheat and enjoy long term success. So maybe a better way of phrasing it is team who cheat don't seem to get rewarded long term.

And if you really think about it, people keep referencing the Spurs tanking to get Duncan. David Robinson (6 games) AND Sean Elliott (39 games) who were their top two scorers from the previous season got hurt. They made no significant dumping of talent to try and lose. In fact, they went out and signed 37 year old Dominique Wilkins who played the previous season in Greece (and averaged 18 ppg for the Spurs that season). So considering that season a tank is misleading. So it seems that they were bad because their hall of fame center and their all-star small forward were hurt. Not because they made a conscious decision to be bad that season specifically to get Duncan.

Knickoftime
Posts: 23205
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

9/11/2017  6:21 PM    LAST EDITED: 9/11/2017  6:33 PM
Welpee wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
Welpee wrote:I don't know about Westbrook/OKC as an example, but three players in 30+ years and that"s the blue print people want to bank on?

For one there is no 'banking' on anything. NBA history tells us big free agent acquisitions is a very iffy proposition. Acquiring talent is VERY hard, by any method. The NBA is not a parity league, whatever version you employ, the odds are against you.

For every team that "tanked" and didn't succeed, I am certain I can name you one that went all for free agents one year and didn't succeed, and others that tried every year, and we're still perennial lottery teams.

And not for nothing, but, again, nobody is arguing the Knicks should bank on that blueprint.

And it's interesting that you referenced Duncan because the Celtics had two picks in that draft and tanked figuring they had two shots at getting the first pick and ended up with Billups (pre becoming "Mr. Big Shot") and Ron Mercer. Didn't exactly work out for them.

Nope. But can you think ANY teams that did it right, genuinely tried, and it still didn't/hasn't worked out for them? I can name A LOT off the top my head. I bet you can too.

I see a lot of confirmation bias in this thread, what I haven't seen is a lot of actual analysis.

And I still like to know what is the actual, tangible thing that happens when you do it the right way that leads to better results?

Much of the conversation on this subject is anecdotal, hyperbole, and out of context analytics.

Right, that's what I said. Just because a lot of people offer unchecked assumptions as data, it doesn't mean everyone has to.

But other than the Patriots/Bill Belichick I can't think of any teams who actively cheat and enjoy long term success. So maybe a better way of phrasing it is team who cheat don't seem to get rewarded long term.

Did I miss a post? When did the 'tanking' to 'cheating' metamorphosis occur?

And if you really think about it, people keep referencing the Spurs tanking to get Duncan. David Robinson (6 games) AND Sean Elliott (39 games) who were their top two scorers from the previous season got hurt. They made no significant dumping of talent to try and lose. In fact, they went out and signed 37 year old Dominique Wilkins who played the previous season in Greece (and averaged 18 ppg for the Spurs that season). So considering that season a tank is misleading. So it seems that they were bad because their hall of fame center and their all-star small forward were hurt. Not because they made a conscious decision to be bad that season specifically to get Duncan.

There are other questions surrounding that year, including (Popp) firing Bob Hill and replacing him with who was then a rookie head coach (Popp) and how much time Person and Elliott missed. There are many who wonder if Robinson hadn't gotten hurt and the Spurs we're fighting for a playoff spot, if those two players would've missed as much time as they did.

But that said, let's roll with this. What if San Antonio had 'tanked' more demonstratively and their record turned out even worse than it was?

How would that have negatively impacted what happened?

I've been avoiding making this assumption, but I've asked you twice and you declined the answer both times, and the 180° change from tanking to cheating suggest to me perhaps you're arguing to some kind of forces of karma are at work here?

Would that be fair? If not consider the question asked a third time, I'm still interested in the answer.

TripleThreat
Posts: 21525
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 2/24/2012
Member: #3997

9/12/2017  1:21 AM
knicks1248 wrote:Tanking For a few yrs, and the Bold names were the guys we picked, would we be any closer to contending after 4 seasons..

That's why I can never understand the tanking logic for a role player


Sam Hinkie covered his strategy in detail and openly to the press. He never tried to hide what he was doing.

When someone asked him if this all could fail and blow up in his face, he was honest, he said he was understood even with what he was doing, it would be a low percentage chance at best ( there are 29 other team in the league) but it was better than no chance at all in a system that has and had real dysfunction within it. What he did say was that he was gunning for

A) Opportunity
B) Margin Of Error

Tanking gives you OPPORTUNITY, nothing more, nothing less. It's a better direction that NO OPPORTUNITY AT ALL. Which is where "treadmill team" come into play. Teams not good enough to contend, and not bad enough to get a high enough pick to change their talent situation.

Amassing assets gives you MARGIN OF ERROR. You won't hit on every pick you make. But if you pick enough in a short period of time, you are upping the OPPORTUNITY for one of those players to pan out.

If you are demanding a HIT on every single drafted player, otherwise what is the point, or contention and nothing else, otherwise what is the point, then your position makes sense. But your position makes zero sense.

I've seen you post for a while now. You have close to zero critical thinking skills and most of the time you have no idea of what you are talking about. You have no conception of the actual NBA marketplace and don't have a base understanding of why most NBA decision makers are actually making the choices, whether they pan out or not, that they do.

If anyone asks me what is the best way to treat one of your premises here, I'd say to "Constanza You" I.E. George on Seinfeld. Whatever you say the Knicks should do, the team should do the opposite and that would actually and probably be a more practical and successful route. If you say, tanking makes no sense, the Knicks should tank.

And so no one accuse me of totally blowing you out of the water just for the sake of it

https://basketball.realgm.com/nba/news/analysis

Go to Real GM and look at the trade and signing analysis they do. What they are really doing is breaking down moves based on current market forces at work. And factoring in league trends, changes in the cap and advanced metrics and stats. You have the right to your own fandom. Say what you want here. But if you actually want to understand the resource management side of the NBA better , the tools are out there for you to develop a market based mindset that actual NBA decision makers are using in real life.

Since you came on this board you have been way off in regards to trade value. - Briggs 7/28/2015
Jmpasq
Posts: 22800
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/10/2012
Member: #4182

9/12/2017  6:58 AM
Welpee wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
Welpee wrote:The question is whether tanking and betting on two things happening simultaneously is the best way to build a team: 1) you lose enough to have highest chance with the ping pong balls yielding the top pick and 2) betting that the particular draft that you have the #1 pick yields an all-time franchise building player.

I think this speaks to the fundamental misunderstanding going on here. Most teams that "tank" aren't choosing between making the postseason and getting the most lottery balls, they're maximizing the number of lottery balls they were going to get anyway. That's a big difference.

ONE team, who WERE already a lottery team when "the process" started (and started because they were a lottery team) took it to the extreme.

As it pertains to the Knicks it's not a multi-year strategy. It's 'Since we're going to be in the lottery in 2018 anyway and since Melo is out the door anyway.'

There's no misunderstanding and nobody mentioned the postseason versus more lottery balls. The issue is going into a season intentionally not trying to win, meaning making no effort to put the best possible team on the court to win the most games. I bet there are far more teams that go into a season saying "we're not going to make the playoffs so lets try to lose as many games as possible" who remain losers after the "process" than the handful of teams over the past 30+ years people always site has their example of tanking that worked.

And as has been mentioned previously, there's also a difference between making a decision to develop young talent than tanking. In my opinion teams who try to do things the right way are rewarded far more than teams who purposely tank. Just look at us in 2015. By losing more games we could've ended up with Okafor or Russell instead of KP.


if the best possible team means hurting the teams chances and flexibility down the road, then putting the best possible team on the floor is a terrible plan.
Check out My NFL Draft Prospect Videos at Youtube User Pages Jmpasq,JPdraftjedi,Jmpasqdraftjedi. www.Draftbreakdown.com
Welpee
Posts: 21621
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/22/2016
Member: #6239

9/12/2017  7:41 AM
Knickoftime wrote:
Welpee wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
Welpee wrote:I don't know about Westbrook/OKC as an example, but three players in 30+ years and that"s the blue print people want to bank on?

For one there is no 'banking' on anything. NBA history tells us big free agent acquisitions is a very iffy proposition. Acquiring talent is VERY hard, by any method. The NBA is not a parity league, whatever version you employ, the odds are against you.

For every team that "tanked" and didn't succeed, I am certain I can name you one that went all for free agents one year and didn't succeed, and others that tried every year, and we're still perennial lottery teams.

And not for nothing, but, again, nobody is arguing the Knicks should bank on that blueprint.

And it's interesting that you referenced Duncan because the Celtics had two picks in that draft and tanked figuring they had two shots at getting the first pick and ended up with Billups (pre becoming "Mr. Big Shot") and Ron Mercer. Didn't exactly work out for them.

Nope. But can you think ANY teams that did it right, genuinely tried, and it still didn't/hasn't worked out for them? I can name A LOT off the top my head. I bet you can too.

I see a lot of confirmation bias in this thread, what I haven't seen is a lot of actual analysis.

And I still like to know what is the actual, tangible thing that happens when you do it the right way that leads to better results?

Much of the conversation on this subject is anecdotal, hyperbole, and out of context analytics.

Right, that's what I said. Just because a lot of people offer unchecked assumptions as data, it doesn't mean everyone has to.

But other than the Patriots/Bill Belichick I can't think of any teams who actively cheat and enjoy long term success. So maybe a better way of phrasing it is team who cheat don't seem to get rewarded long term.

Did I miss a post? When did the 'tanking' to 'cheating' metamorphosis occur?

And if you really think about it, people keep referencing the Spurs tanking to get Duncan. David Robinson (6 games) AND Sean Elliott (39 games) who were their top two scorers from the previous season got hurt. They made no significant dumping of talent to try and lose. In fact, they went out and signed 37 year old Dominique Wilkins who played the previous season in Greece (and averaged 18 ppg for the Spurs that season). So considering that season a tank is misleading. So it seems that they were bad because their hall of fame center and their all-star small forward were hurt. Not because they made a conscious decision to be bad that season specifically to get Duncan.

There are other questions surrounding that year, including (Popp) firing Bob Hill and replacing him with who was then a rookie head coach (Popp) and how much time Person and Elliott missed. There are many who wonder if Robinson hadn't gotten hurt and the Spurs we're fighting for a playoff spot, if those two players would've missed as much time as they did.

But that said, let's roll with this. What if San Antonio had 'tanked' more demonstratively and their record turned out even worse than it was?

How would that have negatively impacted what happened?

I've been avoiding making this assumption, but I've asked you twice and you declined the answer both times, and the 180° change from tanking to cheating suggest to me perhaps you're arguing to some kind of forces of karma are at work here?

Would that be fair? If not consider the question asked a third time, I'm still interested in the answer.

I think you're cheating when you take the court not wanting to win. If this weren't a big deal why do we have a lottery to begin with?

And keep in mind, people here are basically talking about going into the season with no intention of winning. Hoping to lose as many games as possible to improve their chances of getting the top pick in the draft. I just referenced how San Antonio didn't really tank in that sense. Heck, even the most blatant tank job that lead to the lottery (Houston 1984) wasn't what people here are advocating. Houston drafted Ralph Sampson ('83 rookie of the year) in the previous draft and deep into the season were only a few games from a playoff spot before their "tank" the last two months of the season. They didn't go into the season trying not to win.

Regarding your question, do I really need to answer how trying your best to win games and put the best product on the floor yields positive results for an organization?

Knickoftime
Posts: 23205
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

9/12/2017  10:41 AM
Welpee wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
Welpee wrote:
Knickoftime wrote:
Welpee wrote:I don't know about Westbrook/OKC as an example, but three players in 30+ years and that"s the blue print people want to bank on?

For one there is no 'banking' on anything. NBA history tells us big free agent acquisitions is a very iffy proposition. Acquiring talent is VERY hard, by any method. The NBA is not a parity league, whatever version you employ, the odds are against you.

For every team that "tanked" and didn't succeed, I am certain I can name you one that went all for free agents one year and didn't succeed, and others that tried every year, and we're still perennial lottery teams.

And not for nothing, but, again, nobody is arguing the Knicks should bank on that blueprint.

And it's interesting that you referenced Duncan because the Celtics had two picks in that draft and tanked figuring they had two shots at getting the first pick and ended up with Billups (pre becoming "Mr. Big Shot") and Ron Mercer. Didn't exactly work out for them.

Nope. But can you think ANY teams that did it right, genuinely tried, and it still didn't/hasn't worked out for them? I can name A LOT off the top my head. I bet you can too.

I see a lot of confirmation bias in this thread, what I haven't seen is a lot of actual analysis.

And I still like to know what is the actual, tangible thing that happens when you do it the right way that leads to better results?

Much of the conversation on this subject is anecdotal, hyperbole, and out of context analytics.

Right, that's what I said. Just because a lot of people offer unchecked assumptions as data, it doesn't mean everyone has to.

But other than the Patriots/Bill Belichick I can't think of any teams who actively cheat and enjoy long term success. So maybe a better way of phrasing it is team who cheat don't seem to get rewarded long term.

Did I miss a post? When did the 'tanking' to 'cheating' metamorphosis occur?

And if you really think about it, people keep referencing the Spurs tanking to get Duncan. David Robinson (6 games) AND Sean Elliott (39 games) who were their top two scorers from the previous season got hurt. They made no significant dumping of talent to try and lose. In fact, they went out and signed 37 year old Dominique Wilkins who played the previous season in Greece (and averaged 18 ppg for the Spurs that season). So considering that season a tank is misleading. So it seems that they were bad because their hall of fame center and their all-star small forward were hurt. Not because they made a conscious decision to be bad that season specifically to get Duncan.

There are other questions surrounding that year, including (Popp) firing Bob Hill and replacing him with who was then a rookie head coach (Popp) and how much time Person and Elliott missed. There are many who wonder if Robinson hadn't gotten hurt and the Spurs we're fighting for a playoff spot, if those two players would've missed as much time as they did.

But that said, let's roll with this. What if San Antonio had 'tanked' more demonstratively and their record turned out even worse than it was?

How would that have negatively impacted what happened?

I've been avoiding making this assumption, but I've asked you twice and you declined the answer both times, and the 180° change from tanking to cheating suggest to me perhaps you're arguing to some kind of forces of karma are at work here?

Would that be fair? If not consider the question asked a third time, I'm still interested in the answer.

I think you're cheating when you take the court not wanting to win. If this weren't a big deal why do we have a lottery to begin with?

It is a common practice in all professional sports to trade productive veteran players for prospects or draft picks. That is clearly a case of intentionally getting worse for the moment to get (hopefully) better for the future. There is also the ancillary benefit of qualifying for a better pick in your draft. Not to mention an ancillary financial benefit of lowering your salary costs when you're going to lose anyway.

This is standard operating procedure in professional sports.

As it pertains to the Knicks this is really what's being discussed. Most of the players and coaching staff who won the final game of the season last year are still here. Nobody is remotely suggesting they take the floor intending to influence the result of individual games to lose. Nobody is discussing holding out players with minor injuries longer than necessary in order to lose.

The Detroit Tigers and Chicago White Sox have both over the last six months divested themselves of most of their best players. Chicago traded an everyday third basemen and two very good relief pictures to the Yankees. The centerpiece of their return is money saved and a 19-year-old single A outfielder who's at best two years away from playing on their roster

This is much to do about nothing other than trading an older veteran player, which again is highly common in all sports. To consider this "cheating" would be very unusual.

And keep in mind, people here are basically talking about going into the season with no intention of winning.

The intention of winning individual games and the expectation of winning enough games to make the postseason are two entirely different things. I imagine the Cleveland Browns will play hard every game (they just put up a good fight against Pittsburgh) but their front office is realistic enough to know they're not making the postseason this year and are making personnel and roster decisions reflective of developing a team that will be ready to win not this year but in the future, which is both smart and common practice, not cheating.

Regarding your question, do I really need to answer how trying your best to win games and put the best product on the floor yields positive results for an organization?

As Knicks fans, I think we can all agree they've been genuinely trying for years. I'm not sure "positive results" would describe the post-Ewing era.

So on that note, yes, please answer the question.

SupremeCommander
Posts: 31793
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127

9/12/2017  10:57 AM
we need to draft a stud... even if Frank and Willy and THJ all go supernova, we still need another ace with the way the league is. We need a guy like Doncic or Porter to have a realistic chance of one day doing anything of note
fishmike said: Yes. Sometimes I confuse the alerts with when your mom calls. BTW she said defensive guards are really important.
knicks1248
Posts: 36295
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #582
9/12/2017  12:18 PM
SupremeCommander wrote:we need to draft a stud... even if Frank and Willy and THJ all go supernova, we still need another ace with the way the league is. We need a guy like Doncic or Porter to have a realistic chance of one day doing anything of note

THIS entire thread is about how do we go about getting that stud, FA, tank, or trade. To me tanking is the worse option

ES
arkrud
Posts: 30682
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
9/12/2017  12:25 PM
knicks1248 wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:we need to draft a stud... even if Frank and Willy and THJ all go supernova, we still need another ace with the way the league is. We need a guy like Doncic or Porter to have a realistic chance of one day doing anything of note

THIS entire thread is about how do we go about getting that stud, FA, tank, or trade. To me tanking is the worse option

We tried FA , we tried trade... and both never worked for 20 years...
We tried tank a bit and it always worked.
So what is your point again?

He can teach them to meditate... but no one can control even his own mind...
nixluva
Posts: 55289
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
9/12/2017  12:42 PM
SupremeCommander wrote:we need to draft a stud... even if Frank and Willy and THJ all go supernova, we still need another ace with the way the league is. We need a guy like Doncic or Porter to have a realistic chance of one day doing anything of note

That said don't expect the Knicks to intentionally Tank this season. The team wants to win and Mills, Perry and Jeff want to win. I wouldn't expect a team that isn't clawing and scratching to win games early in the season.

Also the Knicks can find a STUD outside of a Doncic or other top 5 pick. Steph Curry and Klay weren't top 5 picks. IMO the Knicks need to develop the young talent they have and continue to scout and draft well no matter where they draft at.

SupremeCommander
Posts: 31793
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127

9/12/2017  12:42 PM
knicks1248 wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:we need to draft a stud... even if Frank and Willy and THJ all go supernova, we still need another ace with the way the league is. We need a guy like Doncic or Porter to have a realistic chance of one day doing anything of note

THIS entire thread is about how do we go about getting that stud, FA, tank, or trade. To me tanking is the worse option

let me repeat: we need to draft a stud

fishmike said: Yes. Sometimes I confuse the alerts with when your mom calls. BTW she said defensive guards are really important.
Knickoftime
Posts: 23205
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370

9/12/2017  12:45 PM
knicks1248 wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:we need to draft a stud... even if Frank and Willy and THJ all go supernova, we still need another ace with the way the league is. We need a guy like Doncic or Porter to have a realistic chance of one day doing anything of note

THIS entire thread is about how do we go about getting that stud, FA, tank, or trade. To me tanking is the worse option

I think the underrated entertainment factor in his position is he has no confidence in the Knicks coaching staff or their two best players.

Imagine tanking

©2001-2012 ultimateknicks.com All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.