Jump to content
Relic

NBA 2021 - Randle Hearts

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

I don't think the play ins are to eliminate tanking. Teams going for the bottom aren't in position anyway.

Also, your proposal just shifts the goal to barely miss the playoffs? Sure, its harder to thread the needle, and you need some semblance of competence, but you're going to see teams not in direct contention keep players out for longer and more often. 

It’s certainly possible that middling teams would intentionally miss the playoffs, but a single elimination tournament does make it more difficult to execute that strategy effectively and if you miss out on the top four you’re picking in the mid-teens. Perhaps you’d need to include a financial incentive for the players to make the playoffs.

I think the bigger issue with my proposal is what to do with teams who’ve traded their pick. I’ve got no answer for that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It’s certainly possible that middling teams would intentionally miss the playoffs, but a single elimination tournament does make it more difficult to execute that strategy effectively and if you miss out on the top four you’re picking in the mid-teens. Perhaps you’d need to include a financial incentive for the players to make the playoffs.

I think the bigger issue with my proposal is what to do with teams who’ve traded their pick. I’ve got no answer for that one.

Scenario one: Make the playoffs: 16-20

Scenario two: Miss the playoffs and lose the draft tourny: 12-16

Scenario three: Miss the playoffs and win the draft tourny: 1-4

Sounds a pretty good deal to me. Which is still besides the fact that the play in doesn't look like its supposed to prevent tanking by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

Scenario one: Make the playoffs: 16-20

Scenario two: Miss the playoffs and lose the draft tourny: 12-16

Scenario three: Miss the playoffs and win the draft tourny: 1-4

Sounds a pretty good deal to me. Which is still besides the fact that the play in doesn't look like its supposed to prevent tanking by the way.

I’ve been under the impression it was a combination of preventing tanking and accounting for injuries in a condensed season. If I have that wrong, my bad.

That said, your breakdown is accurate, but I think it would only be a problem if teams were flagrantly abusing it. It would be a big problem if legitimately good teams missed the playoffs on purpose, but I can’t see that happening too much. I guess it comes down to if you see a big difference in talent between the 16th best team and the 26th best team in a single game sample. I doubt you’d have the same amount of upsets as you do in March Madness, but it’s far from a guarantee that a fringe playoff team is going to easily make it to the final four of this tourney.

Your breakdown is from the teams perspective though, right? I don’t think the players would feel that way if you gave them a significant bonus. The stars wouldn’t care, but the middling guys would and they’re the dudes who are probably the least interesting in having their teams be in the draft tourney considering the better they do, the more likely they could be replaced by a high draft pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its been very interesting following the Pistons (currently at 3rd worse record) all season.

I can honestly assess they have not purposely tanked or held back on trying to win all season. They legit just a collection of rookies and castoffs that have been fighting for positions in the NBA.

The effort level from these type of players is often the diving for loose balls and fight like hell through the screen type play that is doing it's best to compete against every team they come up against.

The majority of their wins have came against the elite teams that took the night off or coasted, while our young guys never let up. They are not throwing games at all.

They are more entertaining than any team Van Gundy ever fielded here. 

With a bit of imagination you can see a young Rodman or Wallace out there or dream of the next Isiah in that draft from a 3rd pick that they earned on (de)merit while competing every night.

I have faith in the direction of Weaver/Casey and know we will be coming up.

No these guys aren't purposedely playing bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’ve been under the impression it was a combination of preventing tanking and accounting for injuries in a condensed season. If I have that wrong, my bad.

That said, your breakdown is accurate, but I think it would only be a problem if teams were flagrantly abusing it. It would be a big problem if legitimately good teams missed the playoffs on purpose, but I can’t see that happening too much. I guess it comes down to if you see a big difference in talent between the 16th best team and the 26th best team in a single game sample. I doubt you’d have the same amount of upsets as you do in March Madness, but it’s far from a guarantee that a fringe playoff team is going to easily make it to the final four of this tourney.

Your breakdown is from the teams perspective though, right? I don’t think the players would feel that way if you gave them a significant bonus. The stars wouldn’t care, but the middling guys would and they’re the dudes who are probably the least interesting in having their teams be in the draft tourney considering the better they do, the more likely they could be replaced by a high draft pick.

Why would it prevent tanking? The difference between 9/10 and 14/15 is substantial. Just look at OKC this season before and after SGA's injury. They were in striking distance of 9/10 but even going practically winless after doesn't allow them to drop all the way down. We'll see what happens at the end of the season, but I think its clear that unless teams are jockeying for a better 8-14 draft spot, it's not an incentive.

Personally, I thought that they introduced it in order to give teams some leeway for scheduling imbalances and to make up enough games in the bubble because of Covid and they liked the concept and ran with it. Accounting for injuries is a bonus if it happens but its not something that you can predict or aim for. 

__

Dude, you only need to win two games. The first of which is a gimme against a bottom feeder team and you are also favoured in the second round by virtue of seeding. After that you're in the competition for placing first to fourth.

And even if you don't make it, so what? As I said, you miss the draft tourny, you get smashed by the championship contender and pick in the mid teens. You make the draft tourny and lose, you pick in the mid teens. You win, its the best thing ever. The payoff is huge. Where's the drawback? You don't challenge for the 5th/6th seed and attempt to make it to the second round in the playoffs? Is that a big deal? 

I don't pretend to know the players, but I'll wager they have a lot of pride and won't throw games, whether it is trying to lose out of the playoffs or losing in the draft tourny. I'll also add that being replaced by a high draft pick wouldn't be a problem. "Its going to be the other guy. I'm getting help." Not to mention that if your hypothesis on player mentality is true, it makes your concept entirely pointless. Nobody wants to watch a game where players are trying to lose and if everyone is trying to lose, you might as well tank for the 5th spot in the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted in college thread, but both declared for draft so will repost here:

Kentucky Freshman Terrence Clarke died in a car accident in LA tonight.  Fellow freshman BJ Boston was in the car behind him and first on the scene.

He was 19.

Hold your people close folks. :grouphug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

Why would it prevent tanking? The difference between 9/10 and 14/15 is substantial. Just look at OKC this season before and after SGA's injury. They were in striking distance of 9/10 but even going practically winless after doesn't allow them to drop all the way down. We'll see what happens at the end of the season, but I think its clear that unless teams are jockeying for a better 8-14 draft spot, it's not an incentive.

Nothing can truly prevent taking, but it could reduce it because taking out completely means you have no chance at the top pick. Basically it would never allow a repeat of the process years in Philly. And when healthy you may be right about that gap, but that's just another wrinkle in this concept that's hard to project without seeing it in action.

Quote

Personally, I thought that they introduced it in order to give teams some leeway for scheduling imbalances and to make up enough games in the bubble because of Covid and they liked the concept and ran with it. Accounting for injuries is a bonus if it happens but its not something that you can predict or aim for. 

Like I said, I thought it was for both reasons. The above is spot on for why it makes sense on that front, but a lot of talk was also surrounding if you're the 11 or 12 seed, but just a game or two out of the play-in round, is the incentive enough to make teams fight for it? They're basically doing a pilot run in a season that's already altered.

Quote

Dude, you only need to win two games. The first of which is a gimme against a bottom feeder team and you are also favoured in the second round by virtue of seeding. After that you're in the competition for placing first to fourth.

And we can't say why that team fell. There are a lot of mitigating factors, and in a one and done tourney anything can happen.

Would you be more supportive of this idea if only the winner got to jump the line and then picks 2-16 went by record?

Quote

And even if you don't make it, so what? As I said, you miss the draft tourny, you get smashed by the championship contender and pick in the mid teens. You make the draft tourny and lose, you pick in the mid teens. You win, its the best thing ever. The payoff is huge. Where's the drawback? You don't challenge for the 5th/6th seed and attempt to make it to the second round in the playoffs? Is that a big deal? 

Again, that's an organizational approach. That's why you need to find an adequate incentive for the players. Say every player gets an end of year bonus based on their regular season standings. I have said you need some mechanism to not encourage the players to try and miss the playoffs to get a top four (or top overall) pick. 

I really don't even think what you're highlighting is the worst flaw in my idea, which I mentioned earlier. The above can be solved. Collusion over traded picks and seeding is much harder to figure out. 

Quote

I don't pretend to know the players, but I'll wager they have a lot of pride and won't throw games, whether it is trying to lose out of the playoffs or losing in the draft tourny. I'll also add that being replaced by a high draft pick wouldn't be a problem. "Its going to be the other guy. I'm getting help." Not to mention that if your hypothesis on player mentality is true, it makes your concept entirely pointless. Nobody wants to watch a game where players are trying to lose and if everyone is trying to lose, you might as well tank for the 5th spot in the draft.

I think good players will have that mentality, but role players won't see high draft picks as helping them if their contract situation isn't solid. And I think you're misunderstanding my hypothesis. I'm saying they won't tank in the regular season intentionally because it doesn't benefit them. But once they're in the draft tourney, who knows? At that point their incentive changes to avoid being replaced. Both things can be true at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Nothing can truly prevent taking, but it could reduce it because taking out completely means you have no chance at the top pick. Basically it would never allow a repeat of the process years in Philly. And when healthy you may be right about that gap, but that's just another wrinkle in this concept that's hard to project without seeing it in action.

You're still not saying how the play ins prevent tanking? Saying nothing prevents tanking isn't exactly a plus for the play ins.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Like I said, I thought it was for both reasons. The above is spot on for why it makes sense on that front, but a lot of talk was also surrounding if you're the 11 or 12 seed, but just a game or two out of the play-in round, is the incentive enough to make teams fight for it? They're basically doing a pilot run in a season that's already altered.

Not really? These teams have no incentive to tank at their spots so they might as well try to win. If anything, it helps viewership more as the standings are relevant for longer.

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And we can't say why that team fell. There are a lot of mitigating factors, and in a one and done tourney anything can happen.

Would you be more supportive of this idea if only the winner got to jump the line and then picks 2-16 went by record?

Chances are, if you're that bad, you're not making it. There's a chance of course, maybe one team in five years? Ten?

No. As I said, there's no drawback. You win, its a massive bonus. You lose, so what? You aren't contending and with the championship or bust obsession, that's the route right there.

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Again, that's an organizational approach. That's why you need to find an adequate incentive for the players. Say every player gets an end of year bonus based on their regular season standings. I have said you need some mechanism to not encourage the players to try and miss the playoffs to get a top four (or top overall) pick. 

I really don't even think what you're highlighting is the worst flaw in my idea, which I mentioned earlier. The above can be solved. Collusion over traded picks and seeding is much harder to figure out. 

The players are going to try their best to win every game. Nobody likes losing. Its the organisation that will say, we need more rest. Your injury isn't fully healed. We need more preventative care. We're giving development time to our bench. 

Your problem is easy. Just add more creative protections. Duh. Or are you talking match fixing? :rolleyes:

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think good players will have that mentality, but role players won't see high draft picks as helping them if their contract situation isn't solid. And I think you're misunderstanding my hypothesis. I'm saying they won't tank in the regular season intentionally because it doesn't benefit them. But once they're in the draft tourney, who knows? At that point their incentive changes to avoid being replaced. Both things can be true at the same time.

Hahaha. I'm not misunderstanding anything. Role players have that same mentality. Its why players like Jerami Grant went to Detroit. Or Rozier going to Charlotte. 

And again, even if you are right, and role players on all teams are trying to throw to keep their spot, your premise of teams trying to not suck doesn't work. Why would you want a good draft tourny seed if not to win it? And if players are actively trying to lose what is the point in the tournament? And if you know you aren't likely to win it, you're going for the placement spots. I think its a pretty clear sequence of events. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Proudfeet said:

You're still not saying how the play ins prevent tanking? Saying nothing prevents tanking isn't exactly a plus for the play ins.

I meant to say nothing as is prevents tanking, in the sense that you view tanking as intentionally being awful. The model I suggested would at least prevent that in theory. 

The expanded play in games prevent tanking to the extent that if you're at 11 or 12 and only a few games out you'd hope teams would compete for those spots rather than just cut bait and lose as many games as possible. That was the logic I saw over and over as the idea was introduced.

Quote

Chances are, if you're that bad, you're not making it. There's a chance of course, maybe one team in five years? Ten?

No. As I said, there's no drawback. You win, its a massive bonus. You lose, so what? You aren't contending and with the championship or bust obsession, that's the route right there.

It is a massive bonus, but it should be a one time bonus that helps teams move up. The point is to make the bottom feeders actually get better. I know what it's like rooting for one. The point of what I'm arguing is how to raise the overall floor of competitive play, and I think what I've laid out addresses that. It's not fully fleshed out though.

Quote

The players are going to try their best to win every game. Nobody likes losing. Its the organisation that will say, we need more rest. Your injury isn't fully healed. We need more preventative care. We're giving development time to our bench. 

Your problem is easy. Just add more creative protections. Duh. Or are you talking match fixing? :rolleyes:

I said in a prior post that match fixing would be a very legit concern under what I've proposed. It's not like I've shied away from the flaws in what I'm suggesting. 

Quote

Hahaha. I'm not misunderstanding anything. Role players have that same mentality. Its why players like Jerami Grant went to Detroit. Or Rozier going to Charlotte. 

And again, even if you are right, and role players on all teams are trying to throw to keep their spot, your premise of teams trying to not suck doesn't work. Why would you want a good draft tourny seed if not to win it? And if players are actively trying to lose what is the point in the tournament? And if you know you aren't likely to win it, you're going for the placement spots. I think its a pretty clear sequence of events. 

No, you really have misunderstood my point. Just start with the bolded. I said role players wouldn't throw regular season games to help their team get a better chance of a higher draft pick that could replace them. I then also said once they were in the draft tourney they'd be incentivized to play well to secure their spot on the team or on the next one they're on. The point was vet role players wouldn't tank  in the regular season to then show out in the draft tourney so their team could get a better prospect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I meant to say nothing as is prevents tanking, in the sense that you view tanking as intentionally being awful. The model I suggested would at least prevent that in theory. 

The expanded play in games prevent tanking to the extent that if you're at 11 or 12 and only a few games out you'd hope teams would compete for those spots rather than just cut bait and lose as many games as possible. That was the logic I saw over and over as the idea was introduced.

You must have gotten it mixed. I'm asking what the play-ins (7-10 compete for 7/8 seeds) do to prevent tanking. Not your model.

And as I said before, just look at OKC. Once you're at that spot, cutting bait and losing games is easier said than done. You're getting very marginal lottery odds from losing. 

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It is a massive bonus, but it should be a one time bonus that helps teams move up. The point is to make the bottom feeders actually get better. I know what it's like rooting for one. The point of what I'm arguing is how to raise the overall floor of competitive play, and I think what I've laid out addresses that. It's not fully fleshed out though.

No you haven't. All you're doing is to take away the crutch that teams at the bottom use or are counting on. 

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I said in a prior post that match fixing would be a very legit concern under what I've proposed. It's not like I've shied away from the flaws in what I'm suggesting. 

Match fixing should be the least of your concerns. It's at the level of doping and if it's happening you have more serious concerns.

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, you really have misunderstood my point. Just start with the bolded. I said role players wouldn't throw regular season games to help their team get a better chance of a higher draft pick that could replace them. I then also said once they were in the draft tourney they'd be incentivized to play well to secure their spot on the team or on the next one they're on. The point was vet role players wouldn't tank  in the regular season to then show out in the draft tourney so their team could get a better prospect. 

No I haven't. 

Here's you.

12 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

The stars wouldn’t care, but the middling guys would and they’re the dudes who are probably the least interesting in having their teams be in the draft tourney considering the better they do, the more likely they could be replaced by a high draft pick.

 

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think good players will have that mentality, but role players won't see high draft picks as helping them if their contract situation isn't solid. And I think you're misunderstanding my hypothesis. I'm saying they won't tank in the regular season intentionally because it doesn't benefit them. But once they're in the draft tourney, who knows? At that point their incentive changes to avoid being replaced. Both things can be true at the same time.

and now you're all

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, you really have misunderstood my point. Just start with the bolded. I said role players wouldn't throw regular season games to help their team get a better chance of a higher draft pick that could replace them. I then also said once they were in the draft tourney they'd be incentivized to play well to secure their spot on the team or on the next one they're on. The point was vet role players wouldn't tank  in the regular season to then show out in the draft tourney so their team could get a better prospect. 

Did you shift the goal posts so much you did a 360?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ok, soooooo

 

Who is talking shit about the Knicks now? I haven't wanted to say anything in fears of jinxing what is going on but Knicks are in 4th in the East, n our longest winning streak since 2013, and Randle is tearing up the NBA. It feels good not being a laughingstock anymore...

Edited by Relic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Relic said:

Ok, soooooo

 

Who is talking shit about the Knicks now? I haven't wanted to say anything in fears of jinxing what is going on but Knicks are in 4th in the East, n our longest winning streak since 2013, and Randle is tearing up the NBA. It feels good not being a laughingstock anymore...

And all it took was a couple Kentucky boys... :smug: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Rhom said:

And all it took was a couple Kentucky boys... :smug: 

i'd take some more of those, for sure. 

Edited by Relic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Relic said:

i'd take some more of those, for sure. 

On year's team its slim pickins... but Isaiah Jackson should be a mid first round pick and BJ Boston a late first.  Neither will be an immediate impact, but Boston's potential is huge.  He just never quite adapted to the speed of the college game in the limited terms of this season.  Jackson is very springy and his per 40 numbers put him up there with Anthony Davis/Nerlens Noel when it comes to shot blocking.  I think he has real potential to develop a stretch game as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Relic said:

Ok, soooooo

 

Who is talking shit about the Knicks now? I haven't wanted to say anything in fears of jinxing what is going on but Knicks are in 4th in the East, n our longest winning streak since 2013, and Randle is tearing up the NBA. It feels good not being a laughingstock anymore...

Me :P  Talk to me when the Knicks win a playoff round and/or when they don't have an idiot running them.

 

EDIT:  I completely forgot that "exciting" Carmelo team won a playoff series, I legit thought their last series win was in 2000.  My bad lol

Edited by Slurktan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep the Knicks are inspiring for a change. Am very happy for those fans, except for Stephen A., he is forever still a jerk for me lol.

Also enjoying seeing DRose get another playoff run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Slurktan said:

Me :P  Talk to me when the Knicks win a playoff round and/or when they don't have an idiot running them.

 

EDIT:  I completely forgot that "exciting" Carmelo team won a playoff series, I legit thought their last series win was in 2000.  My bad lol

That Knicks team shot a TON of 3's, and paved the way for the Warriors dynasty. 

And yeah, i wish Dolan would walk into the ocean and never return, but at least for now, he's letting WW Wes and Leon Rose do their thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

 

Also enjoying seeing DRose get another playoff run.

I can't cheer for DRose, sadly. He was accused of a pretty heinous crime, and I wish he wasn't on the team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...