I seem to know a lot more about it than you do since you're trying to claim that the Warriors somehow tanked for the 11th pick in Klay and some 2nd round pick. You also kept falsely claiming that Curry was sat out to tank, ignoring that his ankle inury was serious and ignoring your own logic since they constantly tried to play him that year (Which contradicts the whole tanking thing btw) The point is the Spurs would not have had their dynasty without Manu or Parker.
You're stuck on the idea that all-star players can ONLY come from top 5 picks. It simply doesn't work like that, hell, the last 2x MVP was picked 15th
You are making the argument like we are speaking in absolutes when we are speaking about odds. Giannis is the exception to these type of things, not the rule. Same with Jokic. You have a lot more people getting generational talents with a top 5 pick than not. And honestly as the league gets better with scouting and analytics(the odds of finding a low pick superstar gets increasingly lower). There is no argument here besides "emotion" and "spirit of the game."
I never once said the Warriors tanked for Klay. In fact I made it clear that I was not saying that. I am also not saying they tanked for a second round pick. I'm saying they tanked to keep their pick and ended up taking Green with their third pick. They would have only had 2 without tanking. I never said Curry was sat out to tank. I said they shut him down and gave up on the season. Which is what they did. They could have kept trying to play him but decided it wasn't worth it and tanked instead. I never once said they tanked the entire season. Do you still believe they did not have multiple top 7 picks over a short period of time?
There is a difference between tanking and not tanking. The Warriors didn't tank for Curry. The Spurs DID tank for Duncan. I posted an article about the downsides of tanking, building a toxic culture that players can never develop in, this is most often what comes from tanking. You focus more on trying to draft the next superstar than actually building a team. You're talking about teams that fell on bad luck and as a result drafted high. Like the Warriors, who, before Curry DID have a team that competed and just had bad luck with injuries and good luck that teams took other PGs over Curry for them to draft him. The Miami Heat didn't tank for Wade. Alonzo Mourning didn't play because of a kidney transplant which was life threatening. They did not go into that season trying to lose, they were given a bad hand for the season and made the most of it but if you take a superstar player off the team the team naturally will suck. You know what Wade and Curry have in common? They were slotted onto teams with vets and on teams that did try to compete every year, something every player talks about being a benefit to them that constantly gets ignored and invalidated by tankers. Yet people want to intentionally destroy the team to get bad and then throw some rookie into a bad situation and hope he saves us.
What veterans do you think were on the Warriors in Curry's rookie season? They got rid of almost of all their veterans after Baron left. The good team they had before Curry was almost completely gone. They blew their team up. Curry was not slotted onto a team with vets. Here is the list of the minutes leaders for that team with age. You are rewriting the history of the Curry Warriors. Stephen Curry 21 2 Monta Ellis 24 3 Corey Maggette 30 4 Anthony Morrow 24 5 C.J. Watson 25 6 Anthony Tolliver 24 7 Ronny Turiaf 27 8 Chris Hunter 25 9 Reggie Williams 23 10 Andris Biedriņš 23
The odds are irrelevant in every draft because you have no idea who will be generational talent or not. The #1 pick is often some guy by default or one of 3 guys. You guys rely on analytics when it's not that that decides who's good. The #1 pick is the consensus guy every year (or one of up to 3 guys) because every team thinks that guy is going to be the best...yes, now based on analytics...AND #1 PICKS STILL BUST. As in, complete bust. It has more to do with personality and drive than anything else. Every guy at #1 has the talent to succeed but not every guy has the personality to do so. analytics can't tell you that the guy might be a spaz that isn't mature enough to lead his own life much less a team and it can't tell you how his mental state might affect his play. Something that is being completely lost here as if Cade is going to be the next best thing and that's 100% when it really isn't even close to that. The Lakers are the Lakers because they can rely on legacy and location so they can let other teams draft busts while they conspire them to come to LA. You're falling for that old casino/gambling trick, just because other teams win the lottery doesn't mean that the Rockets will.
And even if they "tanked" we literally have Dallas who tanked for a year to get Luka...being totally fine. Its such an overdramatic thing. If you are a good organization, there is nothing wrong with tanking.
Nothing at all. Trade your old guys and get young talented guys. If the Rockets can make the playoffs with Wood, Tate, Nwaba, Mason, Martin, and Porter getting heavy minutes I'm all for it. What I am not for is older guys like PJ, Wall, Oladipo, and Cousins making this team a border line playoff team. That is a road to nowhere.
See, nowhere did I mention analytics being the only tool to draft, but they are important and they do help. its just less likely to miss future superstars. Its not a "crapshoot" as you say every time. You are afraid to tank because your number one could be a bust? That's illogical because the odds of a low ranking pick being a bust are way higher. There are low odds for every thing in this situation, you make the best of it by going with the best route available to you. And if we cared about "personality" I guess we woulndt have gotten Kevin Porter Jr. But again, everything is likely considered when you have a pick, that's why these guys are professionals(even though we most likely downgraded in that department). There is no team winning a chip without your big piece, it does not happen.
He had plenty of vets? He had Jackson first of all, always been a good vet and he had Maggette, I know Ellis helped him out a lot as well and he had Raja Bell and Devan George, these were all like 8 year + experience guys? They didn't blow up the team at all? Minus Jamal Crawford...the team was mostly the same?
He didn't have Jackson. They traded him to Charlotte almost as soon as the season started. Raja Bell was cut after like one game (they traded Jackson for him). Things were not the way you remember them. The Warriors gutted their team and went with young guys.
I'm saying analytics is close to irrelevant when drafting superstars. Every guy comes into the league knowing how to play. Every top 10 pick has a skill that teams project on an NBA level. Every single one of those guys. What analytics can't tell you though is that Greg Oden will never be healthy or that Hasheem Thabeet will be lazy and never get better while missing that Giannis will work hard as hell every year to improve his basketball skills. It's a complete crapshoot, so you can't be surprised that some people are not for destroying their organization for a gamble. You keep bringing up Dallas and Luka and you're talking about a team that hit the lottery. Hey, someone won a million on a lotto ticket, that doesn't mean I go buy 100 of them. Dallas was EXTREMELY lucky, they could have easily ended up with Bagley or something if the Kings weren't so terrified of drafting Luka for whatever silly reason they could come up with at the time (and they talked themselves out of it) and if the Mavs do that guess what? They are talking about their next top 5 pick. You're ignoring the luck that goes into it and imagining that if we just get a top 5 pick once we'll be set...but it doesn't work that way. As I've said to you over and over again...if tanking was this surefire no team would ever suck for more than 3 years. Instead, we have examples of teams that do nothing but draft top 10 every year and never get better.
This is the exact anti-tank logic that I talked about a few posts earlier. The goal is to win the lottery. When you look at title teams you will find that most of them won the lottery because winning the lottery is the best way to win a title. Not playing the lottery because you will likely lose is flawed thinking when it is the best way to win a title. You can try other ways to win while playing the lottery but you better be playing the lottery if you don't have a superstar.
No its not. Okay? There are other ways to evaluate stuff like this? No they are not. Lol bro so I guess team that has ever drafted high and got a superstar got lucky too. Damn man, we were lucky to draft Hakeem? That's not a one in a million, they put themselves in a position to succeed. That;'s why they are a good organization, they put themselves in a good position and made the right decisions. The Kings are a terrible organization or were(they have Monte now). That's because they are bad organizations though? Like they are bad. They dont draft well. Dont scout well. Dont get the correct signings, they do nothing right. Its not because tanking made them bad. They are bad so they have to tank.
Curry once told a story about how hjim and Jackson went to dinner and there were trade rumors going around and how Jackson gave some speech (with expletives) about how he didn't want the rumors to break up the locker room. Curry recited this story although he had only played 9 games with Jackson because it stuck with him. Curry, was also affected by Monta Ellis, (who you don't consider a vet but consider Oladipo an old guy? They were about the same age at the time...) and how fans perceptions about him affected him. Basically that fans thought Monta was better than him and how it affected his confidence. It was Monta that assured him that this would be his team and that he had nothing to worry about. These are stories Curry talks about because they obviously had an effect on him. Clearing out your vets for young guys means there's no one to show the way, no one t pick them up, no one to show how things are done in the NBA. It's easy to ignore these things because they aren't numbers but when literally every superstar credits some vet helping them along the way it's probably best to think it does affect a players development. Confidence means everything and you guys better believe that Cousins is helping Wood out, that Wall is helping young guys out, same for Tucker (Who apparently Tate has latched on to) and that is helping them be more comfortable adjusting to the NBA.
Exactly. I'm not even a hardcore draft follower and I knew passing on Luka was stupid. Everyone knew the Wolves were stupid for taking Flynn AND Rubio over Curry. The Thunder aren't lucky and just keep hitting on young talent. They scout and draft well. If you can't do those two things you are screwed no matter what.
Who said anything about not playing the lottery? I'm saying it's a dumb idea to sell your house to play the lottery, teams will naturally play it regardless but you shouldn't destroy your team to do so.
Yes it is. Okay? There are no other ways to evaluate personality? What? You have some way to crunch data and tell if a guy will be content with NBA money and if a guy will have an insane drive to be great like Kobe or Jordan? You better sell it then because you'd make a TON of money, not only in the NBA but in sports and in the world in general. And yes the Rockets were lucky to have drafted Hakeem, they didn't have to, they could have drafted Bowie or get just as lucky and drafted Jordan.
