NBA 2021 - Randle Hearts

[Proudfeet]

28 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.

Yeah, its solving one set of problems and getting another set in exchange. There's an algorithm for determining what order of picks a team gets so that it is more evened out but the value of picks diminishes rapidly the further you go so its dubious how fair they can make it even if teams technically pick every slot once. They can prevent high peaks but low lulls are inevitable.

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

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. 

Clearly, you've never even bothered to read it before dismissing it. It has its problems, but getting a top pick constantly isn't it.

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

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. 

Nice word salad which avoids addressing anything I've said. What have you solved? I've been saying repeatedly that your solution isn't it. 

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I've yet to hear anyone suggest something better than what I offered up.

Yeah, its not near-perfect. You seem cool with nearest-perfect though?

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

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?

One is trying? Yeah, and the Sixers are trying even harder! Come off it already. 

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

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.

Um, disregarding everything else, how do you purpose to find random billionaires or consortiums who want to have an NBA team as a hobby or investment? Especially when its a failed team that is offered up? That is likely going to fail again due to whatever the previous owner did? And even if it has intrinsic value, how do you maintain its value when it is forced to sell and even willing buyers doing the smart thing and play chicken? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

That's an absurdly stupid comparison.  .

Why? It's literally what happens. If you were the top PhD grad, you should be looking to teach at Harvard or Yale, but in a professional draft universe, you get to teach at Costal Carolina. 

Seem fair?

Quote

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.

More poking holes rather than trying to fix the current system. 

Honestly, Idk. In theory max contracts wouldn't exist. The cap exists because of balance. The small market vs. big market dynamic exists regardless of what you do, so you need revenue sharing, but even then you can't control everything.

Each problem you can find with what I've suggested already exists in the same or a different form. However that doesn't address how the overall product can be made better. So how about you offer one solution for a change.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

17 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

Clearly, you've never even bothered to read it before dismissing it. It has its problems, but getting a top pick constantly isn't it.

I've read several variations of it. They all have the same flaw, being that what a team does is totally separated from their draft prospects, regardless if the wheel is fixed or if just the top pick is, which makes some of your previous criticism a bit odd.

Quote

Um, disregarding everything else, how do you purpose to find random billionaires or consortiums who want to have an NBA team as a hobby or investment? Especially when its a failed team that is offered up? That is likely going to fail again due to whatever the previous owner did? And even if it has intrinsic value, how do you maintain its value when it is forced to sell and even willing buyers doing the smart thing and play chicken? 

Who said anything about wanting an owner in an ideal world?

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Why? It's literally what happens. If you were the top PhD grad, you should be looking to teach at Harvard or Yale, but in a professional draft universe, you get to teach at Costal Carolina. 

Seem fair?

Top political scientist PhD grads don't compete in organized games that lead to a tournament every year.  They are primarily valued on which school they come out of, and otherwise measured by publications which has its own biases that are entirely tangential to competing in sports.  And of course, the other side is entirely different too.  The schools competing for the top PhD grads are not invested in creating a competitive balance in order to maintain popular interest in their product - like owners of a sports league collectively are.  It's a comprehensively stupid comparison.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So how about you offer one solution for a change.

Also, you really need to stop saying this.  What's my solution?  I think the status quo, or thereabouts, is about as good as it's gonna get.  Just because, for whatever reason, you think your ham-fisted attempts are more sage-like than everything that's been tried and/or proposed thus far doesn't mean I have to.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Top political scientist PhD grads don't compete in organized games that lead to a tournament every year.  They are primarily valued on which school they come out of, and otherwise measured by publications which has its own biases that are entirely tangential to competing in sports.  And of course, the other side is entirely different too.  The schools competing for the top PhD grads are not invested in creating a competitive balance in order to maintain popular interest in their product - like owners of a sports league collectively are.  It's a comprehensively stupid comparison.

I guess the dean from my university's poli sci department, who got his PhD from the same school as you did, is comprehensively stupid then, as are many of the top sport analysts out there who regularly use this as a comparison point. And of course, you failed to discuss the topic of forced employment, which is what's at hand. If you treated top academic candidates like you did top college athletes, would you feel the same?

And really, what's the big difference between competing to be published and competing in an athletic tournament? You're just trying to stand out and prove you're the best even if the medium is entirely different. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

And of course, you failed to discuss the topic of forced employment, which is what's at hand. If you treated top academic candidates like you did top college athletes, would you feel the same?

"The topic of forced employment?"  

As if a bidding war without a draft would lend to greater equality for athletes.  What a resoundingly pathetic argument.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Also, you really need to stop saying this.  What's my solution?  I think the status quo, or thereabouts, is about as good as it's gonna get.  Just because, for whatever reason, you think your ham-fisted attempts are more sage-like than everything that's been tried and/or proposed thus far doesn't mean I have to.

So you're advocating for a totally broken system. Good talk. That's really helping the two shitty franchises we got stuck being fans of, hasn't it? The Wolves and Magic would have been relegated more years than not since we've been rooting for them if we had Europe's model. But we don't have relegation, so our teams can just continue sucking, and the magical draft lottery will save us.

Oh, wait...

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

So you're advocating for a totally broken system.

I think the system benefits big markets.  I think a system without the draft would benefit big markets even more.  That is basic logic.

[Proudfeet]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I've read several variations of it. They all have the same flaw, being that what a team does is totally separated from their draft prospects, regardless if the wheel is fixed or if just the top pick is, which makes some of your previous criticism a bit odd.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

 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. 

Doesn't seem as if you've read it.

I mean, it isn't a very good system and opens up a whole host of other problems, but it does solve the problem of teams trying to lose. Unlike yours which merely shifts the optimal point.

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I've read several variations of it. They all have the same flaw, being that what a team does is totally separated from their draft prospects, regardless if the wheel is fixed or if just the top pick is, which makes some of your previous criticism a bit odd.

Who said anything about wanting an owner in an ideal world?

You? I'm just basing it off your post. Its not my fault you didn't come up with your ideal ideal world in the first place.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

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.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Just now, DMC said:

"The topic of forced employment?"  

As if a bidding war without a draft would lend to greater equality for athletes.  What a resoundingly pathetic argument.

Actually it would create more equality compared to the current situation for the top athletes. You're basically making the argument that we need to protect the middling athlete so that we're really protect the organization. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Actually it would create more equality compared to the current situation for the top athletes. You're basically making the argument that we need to protect the middling athlete so that we're really protect the organization. 

I don't even know what this means, but what exactly is your point.  We should only be catering to the elite players of any given sport?  Because....why exactly?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think the system benefits big markets.  I think a system without the draft would benefit big markets even more.  That is basic logic.

Chelsea and City are in the CL Final. They were nothing a few years back. 

Market size doesn't mean as much as it used to. Or did I miss your Yankees winning every other championship?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't even know what this means, but what exactly is your point.  We should only be catering to the elite players of any given sport?  Because....why exactly?

Because that's what matters in basketball, no? And I tried to frame it in a sense you might relate to, given my respect for you and how some of my former professors would also make the exact same arguments. I didn't pick ASU out of a hat.

15 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

Doesn't seem as if you've read it.

I've read variations of it. Are you for the fixed wheel, which is like what DMC mentioned, or one in which the top pick is on a thirty year cycle, but the other 29 picks are up for grabs? Either way seems like a bad idea, but if you feel otherwise why is that?

Quote

I mean, it isn't a very good system and opens up a whole host of other problems, but it does solve the problem of teams trying to lose. Unlike yours which merely shifts the optimal point.

Does it?  And how is it not complicated more by trading picks? Can I offer you my number one pick 20 years from now in a deal?

Every system will have flaws, but I really do think some version of what I'm proposing will lead to the best overall quality in the games themselves, and that's what I'm looking for. And if someone has a better idea to achieve that goal I am all ears. 

Quote

You? I'm just basing it off your post. Its not my fault you didn't come up with your ideal ideal world in the first place.

Sorry I didn't reinvent the wheel. 

[Proudfeet]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

I've read variations of it. Are you for the fixed wheel, which is like what DMC mentioned, or one in which the top pick is on a thirty year cycle, but the other 29 picks are up for grabs? Either way seems like a bad idea, but if you feel otherwise why is that?

I'm not for it, but I'm the one I'm discussing is the one brought up by Zach Lowe, where teams take turns to pick in a thirty year cycle and will pick 1-30 in the cycle. It introduces its own set of problems, but what it does do is fix the current problem of teams trying to lose. Whether the solution is worse than the problem is another matter, but the solution works.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Does it?  And how is it not complicated more by trading picks? Can I offer you my number one pick 20 years from now in a deal?

Every system will have flaws, but I really do think some version of what I'm proposing will lead to the best overall quality in the games themselves, and that's what I'm looking for. And if someone has a better idea to achieve that goal I am all ears. 

Its not complicated at all? You know exactly which pick you're getting if you trade and the rules that apply now to prevent teams from selling their future will also apply probably.

So you've given up on preventing Hinkie level tanking? Any extra tournament is more entertaining for sure. But if it is about quality in regular season games, I think its a lateral move.

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sorry I didn't reinvent the wheel. 

Nice try. It was about you relegating owners. I'm sorry that I forgot to snip the other part out of the quote? 

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Market size doesn't mean as much as it used to. Or did I miss your Yankees winning every other championship?

Except the thing is, even baseball obviously has competitive balance engrained into not only, obviously, their draft, but even their international signing system.  And they've been instituting more and more balance into the latter in recent years, not less.  So your argument has zero merit comparing it to MLB.  As for international soccer, I don't know and I don't really care.  But my limited understanding is very few would call it equitable in terms of big markets not having a clear advantage over mid to small markets.

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Because that's what matters in basketball, no? And I tried to frame it in a sense you might relate to, given my respect for you and how some of my former professors would also make the exact same arguments. I didn't pick ASU out of a hat.

First, no, I don't think making elite players disproportionately higher paid than mid-to-lower level players is what matters in basketball - or any sport.  Secondly, please stop using my profession - as if you have any idea about the hiring processes - as some sort of related argument.  Even if you did know what you're talking about, it'd still be rather unseemly.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I'm still not sure why Tywin is complaining, his Twolves will be a major beneficiary of the current system this year. Along with the Rockets, Pistons and Magic, we will all be getting a young stud player to help improve our talent. That's exactly the way it's supposed to work.

[Maithanet]

There's nothing wrong with teams rebuilding, and there's nothing wrong with teams being unconcerned about being bad while rebuilding.  If the OKC/Philly approach of being actively terrible for a while to ensure a top 4 pick became the norm, that would be concerning, but that hasn't happened, and I don't know why we'd adopt a new system just to prevent it. 

Teams definitely noticed that even with good lottery luck (ping pong balls) and good player availability luck (Durant at 2, Westbrook at 3 and Harden at 4, all required teams to pass on them) that OKC only managed a single Finals appearance and no championships.  Likewise Philly is a contender, but there remain questions whether their core is sufficient to ever win the East, let alone a title. 

The idea that tanking = championships is simply not backed up by the data.  Winning a championship in the NBA is hard, and increasingly it is the big market teams that can attract star free agents that are winning them.  The lottery at least offers the opportunity for small market teams to draft and develop star talent, and thus get a leg up on retaining those players long term (see Giannis).  Anything that makes it more possible for NBA minnows like the Bucks and Hornets to compete for championships is a good thing to me. 

[Relic]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Winning a championship in the NBA is hard, and increasingly it is the big market teams that can attract star free agents that are winning them. 

In the last ten years the NBA champs have been from Dallas, Golden State, San Antonio, Toronto, and Miami. Out of those 5 only Miami (and i suppose you can say the Cavs) signed huge stars before winning. The rest mostly grew their own talent, and in case of the Raptors, traded for a top 5 guy. Which of these markets would you classify as "big" ?

 

[Rhom]

4 minutes ago, Relic said:

In the last ten years the NBA champs have been from Dallas, Golden State, San Antonio, Toronto, and Miami. Out of those 5 only Miami (and i suppose you can say the Cavs) signed huge stars before winning. The rest mostly grew their own talent, and in case of the Raptors, traded for a top 5 guy. Which of these markets would you classify as "big" ?

 

Don't forget LA last year and the possibility of Brooklyn this year.