moly99 said:
I'm not saying there is no benefit to having someone like KG on a team to teach the young guys on a team what it takes to make it in the NBA. But I think the benefit is mostly in the form of showing young guys how hard they have to work if they are going to stick in the NBA as opposed to helping them work on their actual skills.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:wonder if Danny has offered Green or even Bass in exchange for Bennett w/o the first round draft pick
Both trades make about as much sense as MIN trading Bennett AND a first-round draft pick for one year of Thaddeus Young. Seems like Flip could get basically the same result - make a heroic push for the 8th playoff seed - and save himself the first round draft pick.Why would the Celtics trade Green for Bennett or the Timberwolves trade Bennett for Bass.
Neither trade makes sense
wade boggs chicken dinner said:Both trades make about as much sense as MIN trading Bennett AND a first-round draft pick for one year of Thaddeus Young. Seems like Flip could get basically the same result - make a heroic push for the 8th playoff seed - and save himself the first round draft pick.
I wouldn't count on Pekovic offering much of the way in rim protection. As Simmons noted in his column on Love:TomRicardo said:
Eh Thaddeus Young works much better than Bennett on a team with Martin, Rubio, and Wiggins. The team will be fast paced pressure defense with Pekovic and Dieng offering rim protection.
I mean there is a chance that team can be above 500
SportVU measures the opposing field goal percentage of every rim protector (from 1 to 5 feet). Of anyone averaging 30-plus minutes per game at power forward or center last season, the NBA’s five worst interior defenders were Thaddeus Young (60.2% FG), Tristan Thompson (59.1%), Kevin Love (57.4%), Nikola Vucevic (56.4%) and Nikola Pekovic (55.2%). By that same criterion,the NBA’s worst shot-blockers were Zach Randolph at 0.3 blocks per game, David Lee, Thompson and Pekovic at 0.4 blocks...
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/2014-nba-preview-the-sixers-are-going-nowhere-fast/
You can see how much movement there was from the 76ers last season — they pushed themselves to the league’s extremes in both pace and shot distribution.
The Sixers may not have found their franchise player yet, but they do know how they want the pieces around that hypothetical future star to play. Sixers ball is now up-tempo ball, with lots of defensive pressure and an efficient distribution of shots by the team’s role-players.
Like last year, it may be easy to miss the process in all the losing this season. Setting aside their chaotic roster, the 76ers are still working on becoming the team they’d like to be.
HomeRunBaker said:Fast pace and equal shot distribution has been a recipe for failure in this league for decades. When did this flawed style become something to strive for achieving? Yes it can catch the upper echelon teams sleeping on certain nights to bring a 32-win team to a 40-win squad but this style simply isn't effective for deep playoff runs.
I'll take a go-to scorer, spacing, and spot up shooters to execute halfcourt sets and beat the defensive rotations. That's the offense that advances deep in the playoffs......that's how you have advanced deep in the playoffs for decades.
We don't have the old Nuggets frontcourt speed or shooting abolity to play/shoot effectively at that pace.....we aren't the old Nuggets and even if we were is this what we really want? In Doug Moe's 9 seasons his teams won >47 games exactly twice while making the Conference Finals once.
Vote No tomorrow on pushing the pace and equal shot distribution as our style of the future. It doesn't work.
Funny how pace, unselfish play and defensive intensity works in every other league in the world. If you are saying that a team will win more close games with Jimmy Chitwood on the roster, well sure.HomeRunBaker said:Fast pace and equal shot distribution has been a recipe for failure in this league for decades.
Pure zone defenses are allowed in every other league in the world to help defend superior offensive players. It's why Anthony Davis only avg 8 FGA/g when at Kentucky......defensive rules force a different offensive philosophy. That isn't the case in the NBA.....it's an offensive stars league. The slower the pace the greater the opportunity for your star to impact the game either with scoring on his own or to create high pct spot-up threes for his teammates.Brickowski said:Funny how pace, unselfish play and defensive intensity works in every other league in the world. If you are saying that a team will win more close games with Jimmy Chitwood on the roster, well sure.
LondonSox said:https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/7469FDB98F1141235463730925568_2818593bbd3.5.1.1913226302335947272.mp4?versionId=.c18yEXvRepAsEQ31x1E2MHshunTbSPJ
Sweet sweet block.
Noel was interesting vs Howard last night, totally overwhelmed on the boards vs the strength of Howard, but did shockingly well on the post defense.
edt: if someone can let me know how to link that better please let me know
They aren't winning 21 games!Devizier said:Looking every bit like the 01-02 Bulls so far.
Bump.LondonSox said:They aren't winning 21 games!
Last night the first blow out loss of the season and not a good reaction, too much one on one and hero ball from under talented players. Noel and MCW out though
HomeRunBaker said:Bump.
Noel and MCW are both back young and as raw as ever. The Sixers are 0-15 and fans are beginning to voice their opinions about the product. This is very sad and getting worse by the day.
Nobody is attending the games, season ticket holders are irate at the latest marketing ploy, they aren't maximizing anything without any players.....Noel is a role player and MCW is terrible.....and they have zero leadership in the locker room to teach either of them anything.zenter said:
Where are fans complaining? I don't disbelieve, I just don't see it from NY.
Still don't see a problem with a team exploiting the rules to maximize long-term results. The Sixers were in terrible shape. Sometimes you need to knock the whole thing down and rebuild from scratch.
When was the last time a star left the team that drafted him before his age 25 season?ALiveH said:I just don't see how tanking can build a winner in a world where rookies come in at 19 and become UFA at 24. Apart from exceedingly rare exceptions (Lebron James), what NBA team has ever been a winner led by a bunch of 20-24 year olds? These kids are all going to end up leaving as soon as they can if they're playing on a loser.
The only way I can think of that it would work is doing what Ainge did in 2008.
I don't see how it works based on the culture and inability to learn by playing the game with veterans under competitive game situations. There is a history of amazing talents ruined by entering the league under these conditions.ALiveH said:I just don't see how tanking can build a winner in a world where rookies come in at 19 and become UFA at 24. Apart from exceedingly rare exceptions (Lebron James), what NBA team has ever been a winner led by a bunch of 20-24 year olds? These kids are all going to end up leaving as soon as they can if they're playing on a loser.
The only way I can think of that it would work is doing what Ainge did in 2008.
0 for the season without a win in sight is absolutely an embarrassment and a black eye to the league. You have one of your franchises openly saying FU to the integrity of the game.Blacken said:The league can't be "embarrassed". It's a profit-seeking organization and the Sixers doing their thing has no impact on the aggregate. So, whatever.
And I'm enjoying the Sixers more than I enjoy a good half the league. Being horrible is an appreciable art.
Yes, 0-82 would be horrible, but does it even half to get that far? There will be lots of stories leading up to 0-26 - longest losing streak - and as that number continues to grow, it's going to overshadow the reat of the league. Can you imagine what happens if the Sixers are 0-fer at the All-Star break?0 for the season without a win in sight is absolutely an embarrassment and a black eye to the league. You have one of your franchises openly saying FU to the integrity of the game.
The talk is just now beginning to brew and if the NBA's primary headlines are about how many consecutive losses one of its franchises has that is a very big negative.wade boggs chicken dinner said:In addition to tanking, anyone else feel like the Sixers are trying to limit KJ McDaniels' minutes to keep the RFA market for him down next year? I suppose that suppressing a player's value, like trying to win games, is within a team's right.
Yes, 0-82 would be horrible, but does it even half to get that far? There will be lots of stories leading up to 0-26 - longest losing streak - and as that number continues to grow, it's going to overshadow the reat of the league. Can you imagine what happens if the Sixers are 0-fer at the All-Star break?
Nobody in their front office is embarrassed. They're too smart to put any stock in low-information narratives. They play by the rules of the game, and everyone they care about understands those rules. Some want to change it, but they're not resorting to know-nothing emotionalism to do it.HomeRunBaker said:0 for the season without a win in sight is absolutely an embarrassment and a black eye to the league.
There is no such thing as "integrity" in professional sports.You have one of your franchises openly saying FU to the integrity of the game.
I know no one in the 76ers FO is embarrassed, but people in the NBA's front office have to be embarrassed, and I think that the majority of the folks writing about the topic still think that the 76ers are going to win a handful of games.Nobody in their front office is embarrassed. They're too smart to put any stock in low-information narratives. They play by the rules of the game, and everyone they care about understands those rules. Some want to change it, but they're not resorting to know-nothing emotionalism to do it.
Why do they "have to be"?wade boggs chicken dinner said:I know no one in the 76ers FO is embarrassed, but people in the NBA's front office have to be embarrassed
Meh? The words "NBA" and "competition" only intermittently fit into the same sentence without shifting your brain without a clutch. There are putrid teams every year. 0-82 (which won't happen) is not appreciably different from 9-73 except in fans' narrative-driven herp and/or derp.An 0-82 season makes a mockery of the idea of competition, which can't be good for the product.
Maybe because they care about the quality of their product that drives the revenues.Blacken said:Why do they "have to be"?
Teams don't go 9-73 "every year." It will be fun in 4-5 years when they get back to where they were 3 years ago. Celebration? Maybe a parade?Meh? The words "NBA" and "competition" only intermittently fit into the same sentence without shifting your brain without a clutch. There are putrid teams every year. 0-82 (which won't happen) is not appreciably different from 9-73 except in fans' narrative-driven herp and/or derp.
moly99 said:The NBA has INTENTIONALLY created a league dominated by a few star players because that helps the league market itself,
IMHO it's a little of both. Certainly the stars are coddled by the officials, and I can't help believing that they do so with the tacit approval of the commissioner.slamminsammya said:
Is this not more of a consequence of the dynamics of the sport itself, rather than some marketing strategy from the commissioner's office?
Euclis20 said:I'm gonna say it's mostly the dynamics of the sport.
HomeRunBaker said:Yeah I never bought the "you can't win a Super Bowl without an elite QB" as the evidence over the years is overwhelming that you can.
Doug Williams
Mark Rypien
Jeff Hostetler
Brad Johnson
These guys sucked and won Super Bowls.....I mean really were not good NFL quarterbacks.
nighthob said:I'm not sure what that has to do with your earlier claim that people were responding to. Basketball has always been a sport where one dominant player can change a team. When there are five guys on the floor one LeBron makes the sort of difference that no baseball player can. If Fangraphs can be taken at its word having LeBron in your NBA lineup is the equivalent of having five Mike Trouts on your MLB team. That's not an "NBA marketing plan", that's just how the game works out.
mt8thsw9th said:
There's a huge difference between 'elite' and 'suck'. Rypien, Johnson, and Hostetler were all good QBs. Both Johnson and Rypien had appeared in Pro Bowls prior to their SB seasons, and had 92.9 and 97.9 QB ratings the year they won their SBs, respectively. Rypien collapsed after that season, but was quite good leading up to that point.
When has a team even appeared in a Super Bowl in which their starting QB had a downright bad season (which would fit the 'suck' qualifier)? The only one I recall in recent history was Rex Grossman in 2007 (and I just realized I had blocked out the Manning Giants the year after). You certainly don't need an elite QB, but it's exceedingly rare that you're winning without a better than average QB, unless of course you have arguably the greatest defenses of all time on the other side of the ball (McMahon and Dilfer).
nighthob said:In any event, this is really irrelevant. Because single player huge impacts are just part of NBA history and far predate the salary cap. The Warriors went from a .444 team pre-Wilt to a .653 one after he arrived. Cincinnati had a 14 game bounce after adding Oscar Robertson. Boston had a ten game bounce after adding Dave Cowens and a huge bounce after adding Larry Bird. Were those the result of "NBA superstar marketing" too? It's just the dynamics of the game. Again, Fangraphs calculated James impact in baseball terms as being a 42 WAR equivalency. That's not NBA marketing.
nighthob said:No. You have it exactly backwards, they created the cap to break up superteams. It was instituted at a time when two teams had rosters full of hall of fame players and most of the rest of the NBA was shit out of luck. It did have the accidental side effect of allowing teams with one or two superstars to compete for titles, but did so by making it nigh on impossible to have teams like the 80s Lakers or Celtics. And those two teams didn't win 80% of the decade's title by virtue of being "good teams" unless by "good teams" you mean "team with 3-5 future hall of famers in the starting lineup".