LOL KAT 25 years old- 362 NBA games played- 22.7 pts and 11.8 rbds Woods 25 years old - 129 NBA games played - 11.1 pts and 5 rbds I like Woods a lot..... but this is homer level.
Yep..... and some of those superstars were traded for young blue chip prospects. Seeing the forest through the trees........... it's all about accumulating assets to trade in for a super star. If our draft pick becomes that super star... .even better.
You know what TS%, NWS, BPM, Net rating and VORP are? Who cares what they did in the past you are much smarter now than a moment ago cuz I just educated you.
Yeah, and the team that drafted that superstar got a bunch of blue chips but no rings and have to restart the process again. Hows that counter to my point?
When in the history of professional basketball in Texas has a team even gotten to the Finals, let alone won it, with a team built around a franchise player they did not acquire in the draft? Now run the same analysis for the Lakers, Celtics, Warriors. Thanks.
LOL. Yea... lets just completely focus on the present.... Whip out the advance numbers for KAT's best season and compare them to Wood this season. Pray tell.... who has had the highest VORP? Whoopsies....
Because the asset accumulation keeps going over your head... Why even bother when there are so many pitfalls? There is no perfect strategy only prudent strategies that fit the current environment.
Why are you answering ny question by saying something unrelated? Answer first why if tanking leads to rings majority of superstars get their first ring in a different team.
Still doesnt change the fact that majority of superstars dont win their first ring with their original team. You are right there is no perfect strategy everything depends largely on luck thats why dont say the only way or the best way to win a ring is by tanking cuz by the nos it isnt true. Im just saying since majority of superstars dont win their first ring on their original team by the nos it isn the only/surest way to a ring. Asset accumulation can be done by any team. OKC has the most assets and they just made the playoffs last year. Rox have a mean set of assets and they just came of a contending run.
Btw arent you the same guy who said Rox can put up a banner as far you are concerned? Or maybe thats some other poster I forget.
I'm not saying that.... I've been arguing for multiple strategies and getting high draft picks is part of it. Then what's your point? You want a mediocrity churn with WOW?
Lol you want a tanking churn like sacramento or Charlotte? You realize Charlotte Bobcats got Adam Morrison when they were tanking they are called Charlotte Hornets now and they still suck? Sacramentos been tanking since Boogie Cousins was drafted he washed up now they are still tanking. New Orleans lucked into AD 8 years ago they still suck except they have a new generational player. Its crazy 8 yrs from now Zion gonna demand a trade to a contender and they'll get a new set of blue chips and restart the whole process all over again. Give me the mediocrity treadmill over the tanking treadmill any day. If tanking worked you'd have all these tanking teams becoming champions instead of just tanking and giving their stars to somebody else so they can keep tanking. You cant tell me thats the right way to buold a contender when the failure rate is ridiculously high and you just have a couple of outliers as example.
It is clearly that Wood without s is a late bloomer of some sorts. KAT is not a winner at this point, he is going for 30 and 10, sure. I am really intrigued by Capela right now, he has the tools to be a 20 and 14 player as well with good D. Maybe or maybe not he makes the jump to be a scorer.
I said it maximizes your chances in a Bayesian sense, as others have argued - the evidence? All the quant Morey style GM's who do it repeatedly and say that it does (I'm sure there's studies out there I don't feel like looking them up) It's also a much better opportunity if you're not a destination franchise, and none of the Texas teams, without a superstar in place, really qualify as one. It's one thing to attract Dwight Howard when you have an all-NBA player like Harden in place - it's another thing to start basically from a foundation of zero (unless you think "Chirs wood Shoulda made all star!" is a convincing sales pitch to the under-30 premiere 2021 FA's like *checks notes* - Otto Porter Jr. Andre Drummond - jesus, what a disaster. Anyway what's your empirical evidence for your proposition, and which franchises tend to acquire superstars in FA rather than high draft picks that take them to the Finals? Miami, Los Angeles, Boston., Golden State.... The evidence in support of being terrible is very favorable - nobody will notice, truncated season, no expectations, deep draft, horrible free agent class, lose the pick after spot 4 - the opportunity and incentives to tank will never align like this again. Get rid of everybody who is remotely desired for anything, even second rounders, swap rights whatever. Bye PJ, bye Oladipo, bye House, bye Nwaba Look as a basketball fan, I hate that the ROckets went from contender to investing all of their stock in future draft capital so that the value of James Harde is monetized in 13 year old AAU players now, IMO the league should restrict it, but that's what we have - time to maximize.
The case for tanking: Look the draft is not a sure thing, but it's a better shot than hoping you magically acquire a generational talent via trade, and actually increases the chances of you doing so, if you get enough draft assets @roslolian : LOOK AT ALL THE TEAMS THAT FAILED IN THE DRAFT IT'S NOT A SURE THING! *sigh* Tanking and drafting a superstar does work - the last 20 league's MVPs were won by players with teams that were terrible and then drafted them, with the exception of Harden, who was moved because OKC tanked too successfully and had 3 supermax HOF quality players at the same time. You could also argue Nash who came to Phx via Dallas, though Phx drafted him. And I'd argue LeBron was clearly the MVP the derrick Rose year, he was just punished by narrative. Still, it's a pretty strong case to be terrible if you want that caliber of player on your team. Harden, Shaq, Barkley are basically the only exceptions to this rule in the modern game.
But we're not talking about having an MVP caliber player we're talking about winning championships. Rox had James Harden for like 5 years and had nothing to show for it. Same as OKC who had 3 MVPs and 0 rings to show for it. You need to reframe your statement cuz if you just want an mvp caliber player, yeah the surest way is by tanking. It may 10, 20, 30 or 50 yrs, but if you are consistently bad year after year you will eventually get an MVP caliber player. But you didnt say getting an MVP caliber you said winning a championship, cuz thats the only time you really need an MVP caliber player if the goal is just ti be competitive you dont need an MVP for that see Houston Rox who are currently a playoff team without an MVP caliber player. Your logic is because a couple of teams won thru the draft then thats the surest thing. You know what an outlier is right? Zuckerberg became a billionaire by dropping outta college how many dropout become billionaires? So obv you need to look at the no of teams that tanked and won a ring vs those that dont, and like I keep saying to you stats are majority of NBA superstars won a ring with a team that didnt draft them. KD got an MVP in OKC won a ring in GSW. Lebron got an MVP and won in Miami. Kawhi won in Toronto. Giannis won an MVP in Milwaukee but unless a miracle happens his ring will prob be in another team etc. Getting an MVP player is diff from winning a ring.
You posted so much crap but still didnt answer the question other than Morey lol. Morey is the same he just focuses on getting top talent, he doesnt think about which teams actually won a ring with the players they drafted vs who lose their stars in free agency. The majority of stars leave their teams without winning a ring, that just a fact. No need to write a paragraph without evading. Its pretty easy.
Ok let's talk about championships and who lead these teams. I think it's a dumb metric but it's the one you chose. LAL - lebron - premiere free agent destination. This is not Houston Toronto - trade and GSW leg implosion GSW - lottery picks & premiere FA destination Cleveland - lottery picks acquired through unrepentant tanking. SA - unrepentant tanking for Duncan, drafted core of Parker, Ginobil leonard LAL - kobe -lottery pick Kobe & premiere FA destination for Gasol/Shaq Boston - lottery pick Pierce and destination franchise leading to Garnett trade. Miami - lottery pick Wade and premiere FA/trade destination for lbj/shaq Dallas - lottery pick Dirk. Bulls - no explanation needed. Rockets - insane tanking for Hakeem Lakers/Celtics/Pistons - all stars mostly came from Draft. Also. It's the Lakers. I just covered about 40 years of NBA champions. Your claim looks like ****, nearly all of these teams are built around superstars they drafted and/or ones they added due to being elite franchises a tier above Houston. The only exception is Toronto and that took a bizarre confluence of torn ligaments to happen.
LOL you are such a clown. You don't know the difference between necessary and sufficient or how we're talking about probabilities here, not certainties You chart some metric,"I'm talking CHAMPIONSHIPS, nobody drafts their championship cores" - it immolates after the barest glance at the data and then you start invoking St. Daryl and Sloan sports crowd, most of whom are on board the "tank is the fastest route back" train for years - as has been extensively chronicled, the main reason why the ROckets didn't do it after Yao was that Les forbade it. This is universally true for most players (stars included) no matter how they were acquired or how great they are - 97% of stars don't win a championship every year. Even if you take the cumulative efforts, by this metric most of their careers are a failure. THe majority of the times LeBron James is a failure, going home unhappy a whopping 14 out of his 18 NBA seasons. And he's one of the lucky ones. It's also true for any team building strategy - 97% of each team's strategy fails every single year. There's only one "championship strategy" each year, but that doesn't mean everybody else was doing it wrong. Making arguments based on this is pretty bad faith - there's a ton of randomness as to who gets a ring each year; that's why rest of us arguing in more of Bayesian sense about acquiring star players and the probabilities of each approach (hint: tanking raises them) - meanwhile you're like Shaq at halftime on TNT after a bad burrito (ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS THE RING ERNIE YOU CAN't WIN A RING WITH A SPREADSHEET ONLY HARD WORK)
