Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Relic

NBA 2021 - Randle Hearts

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So allow the league to find ways to mitigate such concerns if it becomes a problem, which again I don't think it would. For instance, they could just say if you don't play in the last five games then you're disqualified from the draft tourney. 

Sigh. If it was that easy they would have done it already. Is the league going to set up their own doctors to overrule teams? Are you going to force a player to risk aggravating an injury to keep eligibility for the tournament? That's a good look for the league. I'm sure the players union will be very keen. All the league can do is issue fines. And teams don't care about that.

Its also a laugh that you think that this is an easier problem to solve than matchfixing. 

Or that you forgot your claim of role players throwing games in the tournament so that teams can't draft their replacement. Or that they do not. I can't keep track of all the goal post shifting but I'm sure it was there at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Or, more likely, east semi final.  Since philly has the tiebreaker and a pillow soft remaining schedule.

Edited by Maithanet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2021 at 4:59 PM, KingintheNorth4 said:

Ok, after that Nets-Bucks game, they need to meet in the East Finals.

Tonight is delivering as well. The Bucks may prove to be a real mismatch problem if Harden can't go at 100%.

Also, sorry for the slow response Proudfeet.

On 5/2/2021 at 9:48 AM, Proudfeet said:

Sigh. If it was that easy they would have done it already. Is the league going to set up their own doctors to overrule teams? Are you going to force a player to risk aggravating an injury to keep eligibility for the tournament? That's a good look for the league. I'm sure the players union will be very keen. All the league can do is issue fines. And teams don't care about that.

The Player's Union will need to account for everything involved here, which means there will be competing interests and that ultimately is to everyone's benefit if they can find a healthy balance. And they can do more than issue fines; they can strip teams of their picks if they think they're intentionally gaming the system, but that's assuming it would be a widespread issue which I again don't think it would be, and that's why I also said I'd reduce it from the final four getting the top four picks to just the winner getting top top pick which in theory should alleviate some of your concerns.

Quote

Its also a laugh that you think that this is an easier problem to solve than matchfixing. 

I raised match fixing as a concern because it would be irresponsible not to, but you can't know it would be an issue until you see it play out. It's quite possible that it wouldn't be an issue at all or to small to really notice. However, if it was, you'd have to punish those caught doing it and then find ways to change the new process or admit it didn't work and try something new. The major point though is that what I'm suggesting would in theory eliminate outright taking, and that's what I want because something like what the Sixers did should never be allowed to happen again. 

Quote

Or that you forgot your claim of role players throwing games in the tournament so that teams can't draft their replacement. Or that they do not. I can't keep track of all the goal post shifting but I'm sure it was there at some point.

Again, what I was doing is raising possible concerns on the front end so that you could plan for them. It's really hard to know exactly what would playout absent a sample to study. The fact that I've pointed out potential flaws should be a sign that my proposal was made in good faith and not without consideration of its pitfalls. I still think it's better than the draft, which is frankly just dumb, and it creates more revenue and deeply incentivizes every team to field a competitive roster. The overall product of the game should improve under what I've proposed.

Share this post


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

The Player's Union will need to account for everything involved here, which means there will be competing interests and that ultimately is to everyone's benefit if they can find a healthy balance. And they can do more than issue fines; they can strip teams of their picks if they think they're intentionally gaming the system, but that's assuming it would be a widespread issue which I again don't think it would be, and that's why I also said I'd reduce it from the final four getting the top four picks to just the winner getting top top pick which in theory should alleviate some of your concerns.

You don't get it. The whole point of it is that the league can't prove it. That is why you have to work around it and also why you can't levy heavier penalties. Also, it doesn't matter if its top pick or top four. I've repeated it multiple times.

On 4/23/2021 at 10:05 AM, Proudfeet said:

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? 

 

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I raised match fixing as a concern because it would be irresponsible not to, but you can't know it would be an issue until you see it play out. It's quite possible that it wouldn't be an issue at all or to small to really notice. However, if it was, you'd have to punish those caught doing it and then find ways to change the new process or admit it didn't work and try something new. The major point though is that what I'm suggesting would in theory eliminate outright taking, and that's what I want because something like what the Sixers did should never be allowed to happen again. 

Match fixing is a BIG deal. If you're at that point, you have bigger problems. The risks are too great and it requires too many people.

Also, the point is that match fixing is both more provable and harder to do than sitting players out but you're handwaving the more realistic threat while wondering what you have to do about match fixing. 

And it really doesn't. If you amend your tournament to just the first pick, then second pick is still pretty sweet for the last placed team!

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Again, what I was doing is raising possible concerns on the front end so that you could plan for them. It's really hard to know exactly what would playout absent a sample to study. The fact that I've pointed out potential flaws should be a sign that my proposal was made in good faith and not without consideration of its pitfalls. I still think it's better than the draft, which is frankly just dumb, and it creates more revenue and deeply incentivizes every team to field a competitive roster. The overall product of the game should improve under what I've proposed.

It would be in good faith if you didn't flip flop depending on what suits you at the time or if you admit faults others point out rather than being completely defensive. :lmao:And to be frank, your hypothetical problems are rather stupid. Trades? Protections. Match fixing? Covered above. Players throwing to keep their spot? Entire premise falls apart.

Regardless, what you're doing is just creating a new set of problems while not solving the existing problem. If you aren't confident of winning the tournament, where is the next best spot? The bottom. And there's no risk of falling out of the lottery! If you want to rebuild, you don't just bet on getting the number one pick. You sell your entire team so you get five first round picks every year regardless of where they place. It hurts to not compete for that pick, but you're not getting a KD*/AD/Zion every draft. The odds are better from the sheer quantity and if you have a player you really want, you can try to trade up with your entire bank of picks. Again, there's no lottery so you might miss the biggest prize but going to the bottom pays reliably.

Creating a secondary tournament is exciting. A single game elimination even more so. Having stakes in it is also great. But it doesn't solve tanking. 

*Yes, I know that Oden went first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edwards put up 42/6/7 shooting 17-22, 8-9 from 3. Ja was also amazing, going for 37/10/4. Both have a chance to be real stars in the years to come.

22 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

You don't get it. The whole point of it is that the league can't prove it. That is why you have to work around it and also why you can't levy heavier penalties. Also, it doesn't matter if its top pick or top four. I've repeated it multiple times.

Match fixing is a BIG deal. If you're at that point, you have bigger problems. The risks are too great and it requires too many people.

Also, the point is that match fixing is both more provable and harder to do than sitting players out but you're handwaving the more realistic threat while wondering what you have to do about match fixing. 

Match fixing is a big deal. So is deliberately throwing games by not fielding a real team. The former is hard to prove, the latter is obvious, so thus create a system that combats that. You've still never really made a good argument against this idea.

Quote

It would be in good faith if you didn't flip flop depending on what suits you at the time or if you admit faults others point out rather than being completely defensive. 

I haven't flip flopped at all. And frankly you have offered exactly nothing to improve anything. 

Quote

And to be frank, your hypothetical problems are rather stupid. Trades? Protections. Match fixing? Covered above. Players throwing to keep their spot? Entire premise falls apart.

These problems in theory already exist. Do you not get that? 

Quote

Regardless, what you're doing is just creating a new set of problems while not solving the existing problem. If you aren't confident of winning the tournament, where is the next best spot? The bottom. And there's no risk of falling out of the lottery! If you want to rebuild, you don't just bet on getting the number one pick. You sell your entire team so you get five first round picks every year regardless of where they place. It hurts to not compete for that pick, but you're not getting a KD*/AD/Zion every draft. The odds are better from the sheer quantity and if you have a player you really want, you can try to trade up with your entire bank of picks. Again, there's no lottery so you might miss the biggest prize but going to the bottom pays reliably.

Creating a secondary tournament is exciting. A single game elimination even more so. Having stakes in it is also great. But it doesn't solve tanking. 

*Yes, I know that Oden went first.

You can't solve every problem, but advocating for the status quo is advocating for a terrible system, and if you disagree, defend it or propose something new. At least I'm offering something that improves the game and is way more entertaining even if it does have flaws that could be exploited if you approach the game in a completely cynical way. 

Share this post


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

Match fixing is a big deal. So is deliberately throwing games by not fielding a real team. The former is hard to prove, the latter is obvious, so thus create a system that combats that. You've still never really made a good argument against this idea.

:lmao:People don't throw matches out of nowhere. They get kickbacks and that's where you get your proof. Holding players out? Its the league's word against the team. Is the league going to say a player is fully recovered? Is the league going to say that a coach's roster choices are suboptimal? You're the one that has never defended your argument. What is this magical system that you have? That's what I meant by handwaving.

55 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I haven't flip flopped at all. And frankly you have offered exactly nothing to improve anything. 

Role players throw games. No they don't. Yes they do. All you.

58 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

These problems in theory already exist. Do you not get that? 

What? You raised these problems as "potential flaws that your proposal was made in good faith". There's no point if they already existed. And match fixing aside, the other two certainly don't already exist. Yet another example of a flip flop. Or maybe you can explain it to me. 

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

You can't solve every problem, but advocating for the status quo is advocating for a terrible system, and if you disagree, defend it or propose something new. At least I'm offering something that improves the game and is way more entertaining even if it does have flaws that could be exploited if you approach the game in a completely cynical way. 

Here's the thing. Your system solves nothing. Your target is teams like the Hinkie Sixers and the current OKC. They'd do just as well under your system. Maybe they won't get the first pick, but they are in good contention for second and third. With no chance of falling to fifth. So what exactly have you solved?

Your argument is so flimsy that you've just given up defending it and started a what about you tantrum. It's easy to defend the status quo. Your proposed system is exactly the status quo minus the first pick and the lottery (the purpose of which is to plausibly deny the bottom teams of the top picks). How does that saying go? Imitation is the best form of flattery? :lmao:

If you're absolute about looking for an alternative to tanking, maybe you can try the wheel system as reported by Zach Lowe where picks are fixed and rotated in a thirty year cycle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be fun to have the Lakers bounced out in the play-in round?

If the post season were to start tomorrow, the Lakers would be in the 7th-10th place teams tourney to advance. 

This is awesome, from an ESPN article-

In what's too early to call a complete collapse but too stunning to label a mere stumble, the defending champion Los Angeles Lakers are now slated to compete in the NBA's play-in tournament with a little more than a week remaining in the regular season.

Friday's 106-101 loss to the Portland Trail Blazers dropped L.A. to No. 7 in the Western Conference standings, a full game behind the Blazers with five games remaining on the schedule for both teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If the Lakers don't get healthy in the next week or so, it won't matter whether they have to do the play-in or not.

And speaking of healthy, with Zion breaking his finger, I would guess we won't see the Pelicans in the playoffs, as per normal.

Edited by Wilbur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

If the Lakers don't get healthy in the next week or so, it won't matter whether they have to do the play-in or not.

The Lakers are probably already cooked, and the Nets may be facing the same fate too. The Bucks will beat them as is in the second round if nothing changes.

Also, this is pretty good for a laugh:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2021 at 11:49 PM, Proudfeet said:

:lmao:People don't throw matches out of nowhere. They get kickbacks and that's where you get your proof. Holding players out? Its the league's word against the team. Is the league going to say a player is fully recovered? Is the league going to say that a coach's roster choices are suboptimal? You're the one that has never defended your argument. What is this magical system that you have? That's what I meant by handwaving.

And said proof is obviously hard to find. We are talking about the league in which many fans think all the refs are on the take, after all. And yes, there should be an independent medical evaluation in suspect cases, but again that would probably be a minor issue overall. You keep talking about rare hypotheticals like they will be common without evidence. That's why so many of your counterarguments fall flat. At best most of them rise to the level "while that in theory is already an issue."

Quote

Role players throw games. No they don't. Yes they do. All you.

Saying they may or may not is just recognizing an aspect of the game, and again you're ignoring all the times I've pointed out how various situations will affect individual motivations. 

Quote

What? You raised these problems as "potential flaws that your proposal was made in good faith". There's no point if they already existed. And match fixing aside, the other two certainly don't already exist. Yet another example of a flip flop. Or maybe you can explain it to me. 

I pointed out all the potential flaws in the system I proposed, many of which are things that already exist today, but you have chosen to ignore how my system would fix a lot of other problems already at hand which I've addressed and you've offered literally nothing else than complaining about the semantics of calling players lottery picks, ignoring that the lottery is deeply flawed and a system we should leave in the past.

Quote

Here's the thing. Your system solves nothing. Your target is teams like the Hinkie Sixers and the current OKC. They'd do just as well under your system. Maybe they won't get the first pick, but they are in good contention for second and third. With no chance of falling to fifth. So what exactly have you solved?

No, because I've offered up several variations to potentially mitigate your complaints. You could also just split the top 8 and the bottom 8 from the losers bracket so that the 8 worst teams get the top 8 picks, but they have to play  it out to see who gets them. There's a lot of ways to adjust season over season to figure out what's best. It's still far superior to the lottery. 

Quote

Your argument is so flimsy that you've just given up defending it and started a what about you tantrum. It's easy to defend the status quo. Your proposed system is exactly the status quo minus the first pick and the lottery (the purpose of which is to plausibly deny the bottom teams of the top picks). How does that saying go? Imitation is the best form of flattery? :lmao:

I've defended it every step of the way. You're the one who keeps objecting to things without offering anything constructive and I've consistently said well in that case this is a possible adjustment.  

Quote

If you're absolute about looking for an alternative to tanking, maybe you can try the wheel system as reported by Zach Lowe where picks are fixed and rotated in a thirty year cycle. 

I take it back, this is probably the one thing dumber than the actual lottery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the lottery we have Houston on top with 51 losses.

Followed by a 5 team, circle of suck, teams with 46 to 48 losses.

Good times.

Share this post


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

And said proof is obviously hard to find. We are talking about the league in which many fans think all the refs are on the take, after all. And yes, there should be an independent medical evaluation in suspect cases, but again that would probably be a minor issue overall. You keep talking about rare hypotheticals like they will be common without evidence. That's why so many of your counterarguments fall flat. At best most of them rise to the level "while that in theory is already an issue."

Its still a lot easier to prove than what is required to punish teams for holding players out, not to mention people you approach ratting you out. The league also isn't going to risk punishing a team and then having the player be injured after. And you've curiously said nothing about coaching decisions. Rare hypotheticals? Its happening already. Look at OKC. Is already an issue? Have a look at my first reply.

On 4/22/2021 at 11:47 PM, 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. 

And please, refs can be bad and biased, but if they are corrupt, the sport is dead. That's the most ridiculous defense for match fixing I've ever seen. I don't doubt there are "many" fans who think that, but most people will lose interest in a sport that is fixed.

7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Saying they may or may not is just recognizing an aspect of the game, and again you're ignoring all the times I've pointed out how various situations will affect individual motivations. 

:rolleyes:

You keep talking about rare hypotheticals like they will be common without evidence. That's why so many of your counterarguments fall flat. At best most of them rise to the level "while that in theory is already an issue."

So useful.

But unlike you, I have actual arguments. 

I have not ignored your "various situations". Did you miss that I've quoted you through all that? Its very clear that you've said repeatedly that role players do not tank to get into the draft tournament but will do so once they are in it. And then you backtracked once I've pointed out that it defeats the purpose of having a tournament. And you said nothing about "may". It was more "will".

7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I pointed out all the potential flaws in the system I proposed, many of which are things that already exist today, but you have chosen to ignore how my system would fix a lot of other problems already at hand which I've addressed and you've offered literally nothing else than complaining about the semantics of calling players lottery picks, ignoring that the lottery is deeply flawed and a system we should leave in the past.

Sigh.

On 4/23/2021 at 11:11 AM, Tywin et al. said:

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.

On 4/23/2021 at 12:35 AM, Tywin et al. said:

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.

Already exist? I'm still waiting for the explanation.

I'll get to how your system doesn't fix anything in the next quote, but you're so desperate for a win that you're using another discussion about what constitutes a bust to try and score a point is just plain pathetic not to mention irrelevant.

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, because I've offered up several variations to potentially mitigate your complaints. You could also just split the top 8 and the bottom 8 from the losers bracket so that the 8 worst teams get the top 8 picks, but they have to play  it out to see who gets them. There's a lot of ways to adjust season over season to figure out what's best. It's still far superior to the lottery. 

So you've accepted that your initial proposal was rubbish? Sure. Let's go over this one.

Its great that the fringe playoff teams won't get a chance for a free pick to catapult them to contender status, but the same thing applies. The goal is now to be a bottom eight team. The range of teams that will go for it changes, but the same thing about holding players out applies now, will apply to your previous idea, will also apply to this.

The other thing about teams bottoming out. Yes, picking eighth is substantially worse than picking second or even fifth. But that's not all. You've traded your stars and taken on bad salary for multiple picks. Its not as attractive but is still just as viable. You still haven't solved it and I'm not sure it can be solved without opening a whole new can of worms. Its still semi-viable in the Wheel, even if it is much less efficient.

And as for the can of worms for this proposal, well its simply that bad teams will find it harder to dig themselves out with just the eighth pick. Its not like tanking is the only way to be bad, you could also legitimately make bad decisions or have unfortunate injuries and you are in a cycle of suck without the draft picks to bail you out.

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I've defended it every step of the way. You're the one who keeps objecting to things without offering anything constructive and I've consistently said well in that case this is a possible adjustment.  

It sure seems like you've given up with all the "what about yous". I get that obfuscating and changing the topic is your go to, but that was a new one. As to why I haven't offered anything constructive, well why would I? I'm not your toady. I'm not invested in your proposal. I'm not overly concerned over the status quo. As far as adjustments go, I'm offended that you're not giving me credit for going through your proposal and letting you try and refine it in that case.

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I take it back, this is probably the one thing dumber than the actual lottery. 

:lol:

Well, that's the thing isn't it? For all your problems with the lottery, all the other solutions offer new problems. If things were that simple, it'd probably already be done. 

Did you actually read it though? Or are you just assuming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

Well, that's the thing isn't it? For all your problems with the lottery, all the other solutions offer new problems.

No, they've address some of the flaws with the system as is while recognizing that you can't completely fix it.  As opposed to what you've offered which is..... complaining about calling players lottery picks. That's literally all you've added to this conversation. So bold.

Quote

 If things were that simple, it'd probably already be done. 

That's not how the world works at all. Otherwise world hunger would have been solved yesterday because all the resources to do so exist right now.

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


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

No, they've address some of the flaws with the system as is while recognizing that you can't completely fix it.  As opposed to what you've offered which is..... complaining about calling players lottery picks. That's literally all you've added to this conversation. So when:

Your number one complain was Hinkie. It doesn't solve it.

Again about the semantics argument. Is that your last resort? I'll quote myself.

37 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

I'll get to how your system doesn't fix anything in the next quote, but you're so desperate for a win that you're using another discussion about what constitutes a bust to try and score a point is just plain pathetic not to mention irrelevant.

You're pathetic.

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's not how the world works at all. Otherwise world hunger would have been solved yesterday because all the resources to do so exist right now.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Proudfeet said:

Your number one complain was Hinkie. It doesn't solve it.

Actually it does, given you deny them the chance at a top pick if they don't field a real team.  Did you forget that?  Oops?

 

I've provided several different models, some which all but guarantee a full tank job wouldn't get you a top three pick. But you don't quote those posts..... Nor do you actually offer any solutions. Still waiting for a single idea. Just offer one. And if you can't, go back to complaining about why lottery picks shouldn't be called lottery picks. Seriously, you're better than this. Offer something more.

As to the rest of your comment, um, I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue. What does if a player is or isn't a bust have to do with this conversation? 
 

 

Share this post


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

Actually it does, given you deny them the chance at a top pick if they don't field a real team.  Did you forget that?  Oops?

 

58 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

The other thing about teams bottoming out. Yes, picking eighth is substantially worse than picking second or even fifth. But that's not all. You've traded your stars and taken on bad salary for multiple picks. Its not as attractive but is still just as viable. You still haven't solved it and I'm not sure it can be solved without opening a whole new can of worms. Its still semi-viable in the Wheel, even if it is much less efficient.

And as for the can of worms for this proposal, well its simply that bad teams will find it harder to dig themselves out with just the eighth pick. Its not like tanking is the only way to be bad, you could also legitimately make bad decisions or have unfortunate injuries and you are in a cycle of suck without the draft picks to bail you out.

 

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I've provided several different models, some which all but guarantee a full tank job wouldn't get you a top three pick. But you don't quote those posts..... Nor do you actually offer any solutions. Still waiting for a single idea. Just offer one. And if you can't, go back to complaining about why lottery picks shouldn't be called lottery picks. Seriously, you're better than this. Offer something more.

As to the rest of your comment, um, I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue. What does if a player is or isn't a bust have to do with this conversation? 

I've quoted to and replied to everything you posted. Quote it again.

As far as solutions go,

1 hour ago, Proudfeet said:

It sure seems like you've given up with all the "what about yous". I get that obfuscating and changing the topic is your go to, but that was a new one. As to why I haven't offered anything constructive, well why would I? I'm not your toady. I'm not invested in your proposal. I'm not overly concerned over the status quo. As far as adjustments go, I'm offended that you're not giving me credit for going through your proposal and letting you try and refine it in that case.

But you're back to deflecting. Why don't you actually respond to my posts.

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 And if you can't, go back to complaining about why lottery picks shouldn't be called lottery picks. Seriously, you're better than this. Offer something more.

As to the rest of your comment, um, I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue. What does if a player is or isn't a bust have to do with this conversation? 

Because it's an entirely different conversation. 

On 5/1/2021 at 10:28 AM, Proudfeet said:

Still, a guy drafted 8th, started two years, benched for three and out of the league after seems quite disappointing. Are expectations that low outside the lottery?

On 5/1/2021 at 10:51 AM, Tywin et al. said:

Eighth is in the middle of the lottery, and yes, expectations are that low. In a given draft you have some confidence about the first 2-5 picks, but anything outside of that is a total crapshoot more likely than not and you just have to prioritize fit while balancing if you want the guy whose selling point is either a high floor or a high ceiling (assuming the opposite for each is low).

On 5/1/2021 at 11:52 AM, Proudfeet said:

Eh, is that the definition? I figured that the lottery was where you pick from the ping pong balls not where you are eligible for ping pong balls. Its not much of a lottery when you're more or less placed on standings.

Anyway, definition aside, there's no confusion on eighth. I'm really surprised that expectations are that low. I suppose draft position doesn't matter unless you are at the very front? My expectations were too high then.

Of course I'm better than this. Obviously you aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Lol! That's aggressively not trying to understand something.

ETA: Just stick with your bloded quoting of yourself. How would that get you a top pick in any of my models outside of giving the worst team the second overall pick?  In others it would leave you with a 5th or worse pick.

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


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

Lol! That's aggressively not trying to understand something.

Are you talking about yourself? You're so bewildered that you can't quote? 

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

ETA: Just stick with your bloded quoting of yourself. How would that get you a top pick in any of my models outside of giving the worst team the second overall pick?  In others it would leave you with a 5th or worse pick.

It doesn't get you the top pick. You're destined to suck regardless. The point is that the strategy is to get multiple picks. Not being in contention for the top pick hurts, but the strategy still works and you're still not competing. Its all in the quote outside of the bolded, but hey, I'm not the one who can't read. I can bring up other discussions too, remember when you couldn't grasp the concept that the last x games wasn't the total record?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Are you talking about yourself? You're so bewildered that you can't quote? 

It doesn't get you the top pick. You're destined to suck regardless. The point is that the strategy is to get multiple picks. Not being in contention for the top pick hurts, but the strategy still works and you're still not competing. Its all in the quote outside of the bolded, but hey, I'm not the one who can't read. I can bring up other discussions too, remember when you couldn't grasp the concept that the last x games wasn't the total record?

Lol no, it's that it wasn't worth doing so because the arguments individually were so weak. And I'm not even sure what you're talking about with the last bit.

But hey, the game I'm watching right now highlights my entire point. The Wolves, a shit team by all regards, but are at least trying, are beating the Magic by nearly 40 points midway through the third quarter. You can't name any player on the Magic outside of their last few draft picks. They are not fielding a professional team. And they will be rewarded for doing so when in a more sensible league they'd be punished for this. 

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...