Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Relic

NBA 2021 - Randle Hearts

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

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. 

The only players they held out are Wendell Carter and Terrence Ross.  Carter seems to be legitimately dealing with an eye injury and Ross hasn't played in nearly a month.  Maybe they're just holding him out, but I don't think he'd make up 40 points.  Other than that, they may not be fielding a professional team, but it is the team they have left right now.

Share this post


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

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. 

Its more like you don't have a response, given how you've resorted to deflecting.

You don't remember about that last bit? Selective memory much? I can quote it again if you want. Or is it your reading comprehension again?

The Wolves, the recipient of KAT and Anthony Edwards from sucking to the bottom are proving your point? That's a laugh. Shouldn't you be thanking the lottery instead? Trying? Well, I've never said they won't. It was all you saying role players won't try in your tournament. Or if you're talking about actually playing players, well, then the Magic is proving my point from what you're saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, now if the Pistons beat the Wolves on Tuesday, then there would be a FIVE-way tie for the second to worst team if they all lost out otherwise (which is very possible) between the two, the Magic, the Cavs, and the Thunder.  That'd be pretty crazy.

Share this post


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

The only players they held out are Wendell Carter and Terrence Ross.  Carter seems to be legitimately dealing with an eye injury and Ross hasn't played in nearly a month.  Maybe they're just holding him out, but I don't think he'd make up 40 points.  Other than that, they may not be fielding a professional team, but it is the team they have left right now.

I totally forgot that Fultz tore his ACL which makes Bamba the only guy I recognize (I really thought he was going to be a star, but that doesn't seem to be the case). 

At the start of the season they did have a real team, not a good one, but one you could respect. What they have now is a joke and I don't think you can justify their actions.

13 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

Its more like you don't have a response, given how you've resorted to deflecting.

You don't remember about that last bit? Selective memory much? I can quote it again if you want. Or is it your reading comprehension again?

Cute saying I'm deflecting when you still have not addressed points I've made directly to you. Multiple times.

Quote

The Wolves, the recipient of KAT and Anthony Edwards from sucking to the bottom are proving your point? That's a laugh. Shouldn't you be thanking the lottery instead? Trying? Well, I've never said they won't.

I think the Wolves should have been punished if they intentionally tanked. That's different from just being bad and the model I proposed does reward lesser teams for trying. 

Quote

It was all you saying role players won't try in your tournament. Or if you're talking about actually playing players, well, then the Magic is proving my point from what you're saying. 

No, I said they might not try under certain circumstances, but more importantly, I said it would deincentivize them to tank in the regular season, which was the whole point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DMC said:

So, now if the Pistons beat the Wolves on Tuesday, then there would be a FIVE-way tie for the second to worst team if they all lost out otherwise (which is very possible) between the two, the Magic, the Cavs, and the Thunder.  That'd be pretty crazy.

How would that work exactly when it comes to the lotter? Would six teams get an equal shot or would tie breakers essentially screw over two teams?

Share this post


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

What they have now is a joke and I don't think you can justify their actions.

Urm, why not?  I've been complaining about them not committing to tanking for years.  If you think it's a "joke" that they finally did it, well, you don't understand the NBA too well.

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

How would that work exactly when it comes to the lotter? Would six teams get an equal shot or would tie breakers essentially screw over two teams?

I don't know.  I know part of the new(ish) lottery rules is if two teams have a tied record, they split up how many lottery balls for those two places and then they coin flip for placement.  But that's between only two teams.  How you'd allocate how many lottery balls/placement each team gets when divying up the second-to-sixth worst teams?  That's a wee bit more complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Urm, why not?  I've been complaining about them not committing to tanking for years.  If you think it's a "joke" that they finally did it, well, you don't understand the NBA too well.

I understand it just fine. My complaint is that the current system rewards intentionally being terrible and thus we'll see teams be terrible for years on end without improvement in a lot of cases. Instead we need something that actually motivates clubs to never be awful and I've yet to hear anyone suggest something better than what I offered up.

Quote

I don't know.  I know part of the new(ish) lottery rules is if two teams have a tied record, they split up how many lottery balls for those two places and then they coin flip for placement.  But that's between only two teams.  How you'd allocate how many lottery balls/placement each team gets when divying up the second-to-sixth worst teams?  That's a wee bit more complicated.

Okay that's mostly how I understand it as well, but if that were to happen and two teams are left holding the bag......more reasons why the lottery should not be the way we do this. 

Share this post


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

Cute saying I'm deflecting when you still have not addressed points I've made directly to you. Multiple times.

Which I've asked you to quote? Carry on. Should I do the same for those that you have not addressed? 

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think the Wolves should have been punished if they intentionally tanked. That's different from just being bad and the model I proposed does reward lesser teams for trying. 

Its not. If you're bad, you're bad. The Wolves wouldn't have won the tournament by sucking and so wouldn't have gotten Towns and Edwards. Its not like you jumped from the middle of the lottery teams. You're just being disingenuous at this point. 

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, I said they might not try under certain circumstances, but more importantly, I said it would deincentivize them to tank in the regular season, which was the whole point.

:lol:

So, you're backing off from that claim? Good, because you've been the only one making it. As I've said repeatedly, when it comes to the regular season, players will just get held out. It's never been about them not trying in the regular season.

Share this post


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

I understand it just fine. My complaint is that the current system rewards intentionally being terrible and thus we'll see teams be terrible for years on end without improvement in a lot of cases. Instead we need something that actually motivates clubs to never be awful and I've yet to hear anyone suggest something better than what I offered up.

You're not gonna solve tanking.  Get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DMC said:

You're not gonna solve tanking.  Get over it.

Or you can simply not give the top pick to the worst teams. Solved, right? No one ever full out tanks again. 

11 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

Which I've asked you to quote? Carry on. Should I do the same for those that you have not addressed? 

I mean if I repeat something enough why would you need to quote one post? And feel free to do so so long as they're germane to the topic and not some "what if this outlier happens?" posts.

Quote

Its not. If you're bad, you're bad. The Wolves wouldn't have won the tournament by sucking and so wouldn't have gotten Towns and Edwards. Its not like you jumped from the middle of the lottery teams. You're just being disingenuous at this point. 

No they wouldn't have, which has been my point this entire time. And nothing I've said has been disingenuous. I've said repeatedly my team should not be rewarded if they intentionally put out a bad product, and yes that means no KAT and no Edwards. I'm well aware of that, not that KAT has contributed much with regards to winning (thought I am very optimistic about Edwards).

Quote

So, you're backing off from that claim? Good, because you've been the only one making it. As I've said repeatedly, when it comes to the regular season, players will just get held out. It's never been about them not trying in the regular season.

I'm not backing off of anything. I listed potential problems, not known ones. Basically I said x, y or Z could happen and you're repurposing that as me saying they will happen. No one knows, especially if you don't try something new. That's not a great argument for sticking with the current system, which as far as I can tell is what you're for. If a different system was in place and you were advocating for today's lottery you'd have all the same problems to defend plus the absurdity that is the actual draft lottery.

Share this post


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

Or you can simply not give the top pick to the worst teams. Solved, right? No one ever full out tanks again. 

LOL, no.  It's really dumb (and arrogant) for anyone to think there's a simple solution to teams not doing everything they can to target the best possible pick - especially in a sport wherein the highest pick is so essential to building a championship-caliber team in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL, no.  It's really dumb (and arrogant) for anyone to think there's a simple solution to teams not doing everything they can to target the best possible pick - especially in a sport wherein the highest pick is so essential to building a championship-caliber team in the long run.

So just nix the draft then. The concept is dumb anyways. Why do we have to continue to use bad ideas and then say "well, that's the way it is?" We don't have to perpetuate things that clearly don't work, and the current model is not optimizing the quality of play which has been my central point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tywin et al. said:

I mean if I repeat something enough why would you need to quote one post? And feel free to do so so long as they're germane to the topic and not some "what if this outlier happens?" posts.

I've responded to basically everything. You've stopped responding since yesterday. If I missed something out and you want a response, its on you to quote it again. As far as outlier goes, you're the one who's brought up matchfixing and I'm the one who says players get held out. Which is the outlier happening again?

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No they wouldn't have, which has been my point this entire time. And nothing I've said has been disingenuous. I've said repeatedly my team should not be rewarded if they intentionally put out a bad product, and yes that means no KAT and no Edwards. I'm well aware of that, not that KAT has contributed much with regards to winning (thought I am very optimistic about Edwards).

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

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. 

Wolves are so great. They are trying hard (with the lottery picks). Look at those loser Magic tanking.

49 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think the Wolves should have been punished if they intentionally tanked. That's different from just being bad and the model I proposed does reward lesser teams for trying. 

Wolves didn't intentionally tank. They totally deserved them.

You were saying?

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not backing off of anything. I listed potential problems, not known ones. Basically I said x, y or Z could happen and you're repurposing that as me saying they will happen. No one knows, especially if you don't try something new. That's not a great argument for sticking with the current system, which as far as I can tell is what you're for. If a different system was in place and you were advocating for today's lottery you'd have all the same problems to defend plus the absurdity that is the actual draft lottery.

I've been saying that your potential problems aren't problems or aren't likely. So you're agreeing with me now?

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. 

Reads more probable than not, by the way.

I'm not bothered by whatever system is in place. I just think that your system isn't as good as you think it is, and you clearly agree given all the different iterations that you've gone through after I pointed out its flaws. And I'm glad that you realise that you have the exact same problems which is what I've been saying. So what have you solved again?

Share this post


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

So just nix the draft then.

.....and what's the alternative to the draft?  Bidding wars for the best players?  You do realize this is why drafts were conceived in the first place?

Share this post


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

LOL, no.  It's really dumb (and arrogant) for anyone to think there's a simple solution to teams not doing everything they can to target the best possible pick - especially in a sport wherein the highest pick is so essential to building a championship-caliber team in the long run.

There's always the Wheel proposal where teams get fixed picks in thirty cycles.

It opens up its own can of worms to be sure, but its an actual alternative instead of Tywin's extension of the current system.

Share this post


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

There's always the Wheel proposal where teams get fixed picks in thirty cycles.

The idea of drafts is to induce parity/competitive balance.  Complete randomness like that isn't helpful.  Depending on how do you determine "the wheel."  And if not, if a team is getting 1-10 for ten years then another team is also getting 21-30 for those same years.  That sounds totally lame.

Share this post


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

The idea of drafts is to induce parity/competitive balance.  Complete randomness like that isn't helpful.  Depending on how do you determine "the wheel."  And if not, if a team is getting 1-10 for ten years then another team is also getting 21-30 for those same years.  That sounds totally lame.

The wheel is far worse than the current model. Like you said, imagine a decade getting to pick from scraps no matter how good or bad you are. Likewise, imagine getting a top five pick for five straight years. It's absurd and like you said defeats the goal of all of this. 

29 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

'm not bothered by whatever system is in place. I just think that your system isn't as good as you think it is, and you clearly agree given all the different iterations that you've gone through after I pointed out its flaws. And I'm glad that you realise that you have the exact same problems which is what I've been saying. So what have you solved again?

If I may start from the end, I did not mean to come across has having discovered some magical, near-perfect system. I just think the current one is terribly flawed and that we should be trying to find something new, and when people reject ideas without offering their own it seems like they're cool with the status quo, which I am obviously not. 

Quote

Wolves are so great. They are trying hard (with the lottery picks). Look at those loser Magic tanking.

Wolves didn't intentionally tank. They totally deserved them

That's one way to slice it, but don't you see how under what I proposed the two teams' fates would be radically different? Both clubs suck, but one is trying. In a vacuum do you not think that team should be rewarded more than a team filling its rosters with a bunch of bums, players who by the way aren't helping the development of the Magic's best young player?

33 minutes ago, DMC said:

.....and what's the alternative to the draft?  Bidding wars for the best players?  You do realize this is why drafts were conceived in the first place?

Yes, and like I've discussed in the soccer thread not having a draft* creates new sets of problems. Frankly I wish we could take the best of European football and American sports and mix them. Have a salary cap, eliminate the draft and relegate bad owners. That won't ever happen, but again, in the spirit of producing the best product, I think that could be better than what we currently have.

*I'll admit though, without a draft I don't know how you get a young star to play for the Pacers if they can't offer significantly more money. Every idea has a flaw, but can we at least try to find the least flawed idea?

Share this post


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

Every idea has a flaw, but can we at least try to find the least flawed idea?

Yeah I don't think not having a draft at all, especially with the NBA, is the least flawed idea.  At all.

Share this post


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

Yeah I don't think not having a draft at all, especially with the NBA, is the least flawed idea.  At all.

:dunno:

You just got your PhD and yet you're far more knowledgeable than most of my poli sci professors who were teaching for years, some decades, when I first showed up in their classes. Should ASU get to draft you and make you sign a contract to teach there for five years when NYU wants to offer you equal pay adjusted to cost of living and what they're doing is more in line with your specialties?

Would that be fair to you? 

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


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

You just got your PhD and yet you're far more knowledgeable than most of my poli sci professors who were teaching for years, some decades, when I first showed up in their classes. Should ASU get to draft you and make you sign a contract to teach there for five years when NYU wants to offer you equal pay adjusted to cost of living and what they're doing is more in line with your specialties?

That's an absurdly stupid comparison.  Anyway, what's the max contract a team can offer?  Is there no max?  Even with a salary cap, how do you prevent big market teams from exploiting their relative worth compared to mid-to-small market teams?  Again, this is hardly a superior alternative.

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...