Author Topic: New article takes in depth look at 76ers strategy  (Read 12192 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: New article takes in depth look at 76ers strategy
« Reply #45 on: March 04, 2015, 06:23:34 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8113
  • Tommy Points: 549
I'm way to lazy to do it myself but I'd love to see somebody take on the fact that the media types who seem most in love with Hinkie's strategy appear to be the analytics crowd.  But I've never seen anyone actually crunch the numbers on whether what Hinkie is doing will lead to any statistically meaningful advantages.  Like how much of a correlation can you draw in NBA history between having one of the bottom two records in a season and getting a franchise-level star in the draft because of it.

Mike

Duncan's the easy one (obviously). Hakeem.

If you give me a barometer of 'franchise level' I can whip something up. It's a slow day for me.

Nope, Duncan does not count.  San Antonio only had the third worst record in the league, they won 5 and 6 more games than the bottom two teams and had only one more loss than the 4th worst record.

And since the pro-tanking argument is all about championships, the standard should probably be best player on a team that makes it to the Finals with the team that drafted him.

Mike
Well I know the Cavs did that.  They tied for the worst record in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Lebron, and reached the finals in Lebron's 4th season (same draft the Heat had the 4th worst record and drafted Wade).

Magic were the 2nd worst team in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Shaq, and reached the finals in Shaq's 3rd season (it did help that they won the lottery the next year after barely missing the playoffs).

Houston was the worst team in the league took Ralph Sampson at #1 and then was the 2nd worst team in the league the next year and took Hakeem at #1.  That seemed to work out fairly well for them. 

It is much more about being bad in the right draft then being bad. 
very true about getting the top pick in the right draft. 

The Magic, Spurs and Houston examples are what I would consider tainted examples of this process.  Each team had multiple lottery wins and other top picks in very good drafts to get to success. 
Houston had Sampson AND Rodney Mccray before getting Olajuwon.
Spurs had Robinson before getting really lucky for Duncan
Orlando landed the top pick after having Shaq to flip it for Penny and assets. 

to look at Philly, their top 4 "prizes" so far have been
1. MCW who's been shipped out after winning ROY in a weak draft class (and personally, I think it should have gone to Oladipo)
2. Noel who slipped to 6 after a knee injury.  if healthy, he's taken probably #1 well ahead of Bennett who'd possibly have been the player taken at 6 --> how'd the Sixers look now if THAT had been the player they'd taken?
3. Embiid who would have gone number 1 if healthy.  they still would have gotten either Wiggins or Parker but if it'd been Parker, they'd have lost him to injury for the year.  would have had a good player but not a center that other teams want.
4. Saric who's yet to play a game for them and not a sure thing to leave Europe to join their dumpster fire of a team. 
So, if things played out as though no players were injured, Philly would have MCW, Bennett, Parker and Saric.  With that roster, would anyone truly be advocating that Philly has a great game plan for improvement?
The Sixers didn't tank to get MCW.  He was an 11th pick after they finished 34-48 which is around where the Celtics will finish this year.  Personally I think they should have taken the Greek Freak over MCW but we should have taken him over KO as well.  They tried MCW out for a 1.5 years and decided he wasn't going to be a core player for them so they recycled him for the Lakers 1st.  If Ainge had recycled KO for the Lakers 1st, I would have been very happy. 

The Sixers traded Jrue Holiday for Noel and a 2014 1st.  They then swapped 2014 1sts with Orlando and got their own 2017 1st back.  So they turned Holliday into Noel, Saric and their 2017 1st.  I think that is a very good return. 

Embiid was acquired from their 1st tanking season.  I think he has the highest potential of anyone in the 2013, 2014 and 2015 drafts.  However if they had end up with Parker that would still have been a good pick.  With Embiid, they can go after Mudiay or Russell in this draft.  If they had Parker, they could get Okafor or Towns.

People complain about the Sixers like they've been tanking for many years without results but this is only their 2nd tanking season.  The Sixers are making moves to maximize their potential for acquiring stars whether it is via the draft, trade or free agency.  I think an objective  comparison of existing talent, draft picks and cap space favors the Sixers position over the Celtics. 

Re: New article takes in depth look at 76ers strategy
« Reply #46 on: March 04, 2015, 06:32:06 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
That's correct: Hinkie didn't take over until July of 2013, and was tasked with rebuilding the team after the Bynum disaster.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: New article takes in depth look at 76ers strategy
« Reply #47 on: March 04, 2015, 06:43:34 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8113
  • Tommy Points: 549
I think what's missing from this discussion is: what are the Sixers' alternatives? They aren't a big FA destination like LA, NY, Houston, or Miami. They can rebuild through the draft or through trades-- that is, by trading their draft picks. Either way, they are better off with better draft picks, and tanking is obviously an effective way to get higher picks.

Maybe the Sixers could be a mediocre team with a mediocre future, but is that really better than being a bad team with the hope of a bright future?

Miami wasn't really considered a big free agent destination prior to LeBron. Neither was Houston, really.

The amount of money a team can throw at a player is still the largest qualifier in most free agency cases. It just so happens that teams like Los Angeles and New York are/were much more willing to throw large amounts of money at players. THat's not entirely a big market thing -- under the previous CBA, the trail blazers were notorious for overpaying players.

Yeah, but the Florida and Texas teams have natural tax advantages that will always give them an edge. Effectively, with the cap, teams in those states have the ability to throw more money at the top stars than any other teams.

And NY and LA have more non-salary money to throw because of endorsements.

In regards to Florida and Texas you're correct, but that's part of the reason why a player's Bird Rights are so important -- that extra year helps mitigate the difference.

Fair point, although I think it's moot if Philly is competing with one of those other teams for a free agent with Bird rights held by another team.

Getting back to the main topic, I think Philly's doing some good things. We hear the "lottery is a crapshoot" dismissal far too often, in my opinion. Among other things, it ignores the fact that all other strategies are crapshoots too.

The real bottom line is that good GMs make their strategies work and bad GMs screw up whatever strategies they pick. Ainge is great. The jury's out on Hinkie.
TP to you.  Philly already tried the trade crapshoot and busted with the Bynum acquisition.  Hinkie has significantly improved the Sixers draft potential but that also helps their trade potential and he hasn't hurt their free agency potential.  I really like the trades Hinkie has made so far and his draft picks have been solid.   

Re: New article takes in depth look at 76ers strategy
« Reply #48 on: March 04, 2015, 07:48:00 PM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471


People complain about the Sixers like they've been tanking for many years without results but this is only their 2nd tanking season.

I don't know what to say to someone who refers to "only" tanking two whole seasons.

Mike

Re: New article takes in depth look at 76ers strategy
« Reply #49 on: March 04, 2015, 08:12:20 PM »

Offline chambers

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7482
  • Tommy Points: 943
  • Boston Celtics= Championships, nothing less.


People complain about the Sixers like they've been tanking for many years without results but this is only their 2nd tanking season.

I don't know what to say to someone who refers to "only" tanking two whole seasons.

Mike

Well to be fair he has a point.
Philly is continually lambasted on this board for their tanking but they didn't 'tank' when they got Noel or MCW. Their record was 34-48 in 2013.
Their first tanking prospects were Embid and Saric when they had 19 wins in 2014.
They traded Elfrid Payton to the Magic for Saric.

They got rid of MCW and essentially turned the 11th pick into the Lakers pick after they realized that Carter Williams was fools gold and got a high return for him. A statisticians club like the 76ers couldn't wait to get rid of Michael Chucker Williams.

They moved KJ McDaniels because he's a free agent next year and he'll be overpaid, and mostly because Grant is a better prospect than McDaniels and cost controlled for 3 more years.

This is all a matter of opinion but I actually admire Hinks for his tenacity and aggressiveness.
How does the old saying go?

You shouldn't settle for 'good' when 'greatness' is still sitting on the table?
"We are lucky we have a very patient GM that isn't willing to settle for being good and coming close. He wants to win a championship and we have the potential to get there still with our roster and assets."

quoting 'Greg B' on RealGM after 2017 trade deadline.
Read that last line again. One more time.

Re: New article takes in depth look at 76ers strategy
« Reply #50 on: March 04, 2015, 08:19:52 PM »

Offline RAAAAAAAANDY

  • NCE
  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 995
  • Tommy Points: 57
I'm way to lazy to do it myself but I'd love to see somebody take on the fact that the media types who seem most in love with Hinkie's strategy appear to be the analytics crowd.  But I've never seen anyone actually crunch the numbers on whether what Hinkie is doing will lead to any statistically meaningful advantages.  Like how much of a correlation can you draw in NBA history between having one of the bottom two records in a season and getting a franchise-level star in the draft because of it.

Mike

Duncan's the easy one (obviously). Hakeem.

If you give me a barometer of 'franchise level' I can whip something up. It's a slow day for me.

Nope, Duncan does not count.  San Antonio only had the third worst record in the league, they won 5 and 6 more games than the bottom two teams and had only one more loss than the 4th worst record.

And since the pro-tanking argument is all about championships, the standard should probably be best player on a team that makes it to the Finals with the team that drafted him.

Mike
Well I know the Cavs did that.  They tied for the worst record in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Lebron, and reached the finals in Lebron's 4th season (same draft the Heat had the 4th worst record and drafted Wade).

Magic were the 2nd worst team in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Shaq, and reached the finals in Shaq's 3rd season (it did help that they won the lottery the next year after barely missing the playoffs).

Houston was the worst team in the league took Ralph Sampson at #1 and then was the 2nd worst team in the league the next year and took Hakeem at #1.  That seemed to work out fairly well for them. 

It is much more about being bad in the right draft then being bad. 
very true about getting the top pick in the right draft. 

The Magic, Spurs and Houston examples are what I would consider tainted examples of this process.  Each team had multiple lottery wins and other top picks in very good drafts to get to success. 
Houston had Sampson AND Rodney Mccray before getting Olajuwon.
Spurs had Robinson before getting really lucky for Duncan
Orlando landed the top pick after having Shaq to flip it for Penny and assets. 

to look at Philly, their top 4 "prizes" so far have been
1. MCW who's been shipped out after winning ROY in a weak draft class (and personally, I think it should have gone to Oladipo)
2. Noel who slipped to 6 after a knee injury.  if healthy, he's taken probably #1 well ahead of Bennett who'd possibly have been the player taken at 6 --> how'd the Sixers look now if THAT had been the player they'd taken?
3. Embiid who would have gone number 1 if healthy.  they still would have gotten either Wiggins or Parker but if it'd been Parker, they'd have lost him to injury for the year.  would have had a good player but not a center that other teams want.
4. Saric who's yet to play a game for them and not a sure thing to leave Europe to join their dumpster fire of a team. 
So, if things played out as though no players were injured, Philly would have MCW, Bennett, Parker and Saric.  With that roster, would anyone truly be advocating that Philly has a great game plan for improvement?

Are you even serious with the bold parts? The Sixers we're the first team to bite the bullet on an injured Noel. That's why they have him, and how on Earth do you know that Bennett is the pick there? Or if they even make the trade to begin with?  The idea that they'd have done everything exactly same with those guys is extreely far fetched. Maybe they take Gobert since they wouldn't have had a center. Maybe they keep Elfrid Payton instead of trading him to the Magic. Maybe they take Wiggins because everybody and their mother was saying the Bucks wanted Jabari regardless of who the top pick was.

But yes, if you're allowed to make your fantasy universe where you can make things go worst case scenario for other NBA franchises then sure. They'd be in trouble.

If KG hurt his knee a year earlier then Ainge tanked for nothing in 2007... What an idiot! That didn't happen though. So it's a pretty ridiculous argument.
my goodness, you really are a Philly fan.  if nothing else, you're certainly consistent in your defense of their 'plan'.

nothing ridiculous about what I said.  what's unrealistic about Noel going higher than #6 if he's healthy?  the answer, nothing.

What's untrue about Embiid going higher if healthy?  nothing.

bottom line, Philly has 'lucked' out in these drafts not because they got the top pick but that the top prospect in the drafts fell to them due to injury concerns.  that's not planning or strategy, just plain luck.  Sure, the players I proposed they end up taking if Noel/Embiid aren't injured could have been different from what I suggested but have to put something out there and it was a reasonable option.   To suggest that Philly has Noel and Embiid through master planning/strategy is ignoring reality

You can if and but every single plan in the NBA. Congratulations, if things had been different they'd be different... That proved something I guess?

Who is suggesting it was master planning? They took who they thought was the BPA at every spot they drafted, and in two cases they were able to get talents at lower than expected slots because they we're willing to accept missed time due to injuries. It's what a team with the luxury of rebuilding without some sort of stupid "win now" edict from ownership has the luxury of doing.

If they didn't draft Embiid they'd probably have drafted Andrew Wiggins. I'm not sure how that strengthens your argument.

Re: New article takes in depth look at 76ers strategy
« Reply #51 on: March 04, 2015, 08:57:31 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8113
  • Tommy Points: 549


People complain about the Sixers like they've been tanking for many years without results but this is only their 2nd tanking season.

I don't know what to say to someone who refers to "only" tanking two whole seasons.

Mike
Unless an opportunity to acquire a star via trade or free agency presents itself, I expect that they'll tank one more season but not as hard.  They'll focus on developing Embiid, Noel and whoever they acquire in this draft rather than acquiring some mediocre talent to get a few more wins. 

Since you're at a loss for words, you could try to formulate an argument that our position is stronger than the Sixers position or you could formulate arguments against the individual moves that Hinkie has made.  Personally I'm hoping that they win the lottery and take Okafor or Towns so we can get their big man scraps.         

Re: New article takes in depth look at 76ers strategy
« Reply #52 on: March 04, 2015, 10:09:33 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
I'm way to lazy to do it myself but I'd love to see somebody take on the fact that the media types who seem most in love with Hinkie's strategy appear to be the analytics crowd.  But I've never seen anyone actually crunch the numbers on whether what Hinkie is doing will lead to any statistically meaningful advantages.  Like how much of a correlation can you draw in NBA history between having one of the bottom two records in a season and getting a franchise-level star in the draft because of it.

Mike

Duncan's the easy one (obviously). Hakeem.

If you give me a barometer of 'franchise level' I can whip something up. It's a slow day for me.

Nope, Duncan does not count.  San Antonio only had the third worst record in the league, they won 5 and 6 more games than the bottom two teams and had only one more loss than the 4th worst record.

And since the pro-tanking argument is all about championships, the standard should probably be best player on a team that makes it to the Finals with the team that drafted him.

Mike
Well I know the Cavs did that.  They tied for the worst record in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Lebron, and reached the finals in Lebron's 4th season (same draft the Heat had the 4th worst record and drafted Wade).

Magic were the 2nd worst team in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Shaq, and reached the finals in Shaq's 3rd season (it did help that they won the lottery the next year after barely missing the playoffs).

Houston was the worst team in the league took Ralph Sampson at #1 and then was the 2nd worst team in the league the next year and took Hakeem at #1.  That seemed to work out fairly well for them. 

It is much more about being bad in the right draft then being bad. 
very true about getting the top pick in the right draft. 

The Magic, Spurs and Houston examples are what I would consider tainted examples of this process.  Each team had multiple lottery wins and other top picks in very good drafts to get to success. 
Houston had Sampson AND Rodney Mccray before getting Olajuwon.
Spurs had Robinson before getting really lucky for Duncan
Orlando landed the top pick after having Shaq to flip it for Penny and assets. 

to look at Philly, their top 4 "prizes" so far have been
1. MCW who's been shipped out after winning ROY in a weak draft class (and personally, I think it should have gone to Oladipo)
2. Noel who slipped to 6 after a knee injury.  if healthy, he's taken probably #1 well ahead of Bennett who'd possibly have been the player taken at 6 --> how'd the Sixers look now if THAT had been the player they'd taken?
3. Embiid who would have gone number 1 if healthy.  they still would have gotten either Wiggins or Parker but if it'd been Parker, they'd have lost him to injury for the year.  would have had a good player but not a center that other teams want.
4. Saric who's yet to play a game for them and not a sure thing to leave Europe to join their dumpster fire of a team. 
So, if things played out as though no players were injured, Philly would have MCW, Bennett, Parker and Saric.  With that roster, would anyone truly be advocating that Philly has a great game plan for improvement?

Are you even serious with the bold parts? The Sixers we're the first team to bite the bullet on an injured Noel. That's why they have him, and how on Earth do you know that Bennett is the pick there? Or if they even make the trade to begin with?  The idea that they'd have done everything exactly same with those guys is extreely far fetched. Maybe they take Gobert since they wouldn't have had a center. Maybe they keep Elfrid Payton instead of trading him to the Magic. Maybe they take Wiggins because everybody and their mother was saying the Bucks wanted Jabari regardless of who the top pick was.

But yes, if you're allowed to make your fantasy universe where you can make things go worst case scenario for other NBA franchises then sure. They'd be in trouble.

If KG hurt his knee a year earlier then Ainge tanked for nothing in 2007... What an idiot! That didn't happen though. So it's a pretty ridiculous argument.
my goodness, you really are a Philly fan.  if nothing else, you're certainly consistent in your defense of their 'plan'.

nothing ridiculous about what I said.  what's unrealistic about Noel going higher than #6 if he's healthy?  the answer, nothing.

What's untrue about Embiid going higher if healthy?  nothing.

bottom line, Philly has 'lucked' out in these drafts not because they got the top pick but that the top prospect in the drafts fell to them due to injury concerns.  that's not planning or strategy, just plain luck.  Sure, the players I proposed they end up taking if Noel/Embiid aren't injured could have been different from what I suggested but have to put something out there and it was a reasonable option.   To suggest that Philly has Noel and Embiid through master planning/strategy is ignoring reality

You can if and but every single plan in the NBA. Congratulations, if things had been different they'd be different... That proved something I guess?

Who is suggesting it was master planning? They took who they thought was the BPA at every spot they drafted, and in two cases they were able to get talents at lower than expected slots because they we're willing to accept missed time due to injuries. It's what a team with the luxury of rebuilding without some sort of stupid "win now" edict from ownership has the luxury of doing.

If they didn't draft Embiid they'd probably have drafted Andrew Wiggins. I'm not sure how that strengthens your argument.

you guessed right - it did prove my argument.  try as they might to get the top pick, that didn't work.  so that strategy didn't work as planned.  also, if the top prospects in those 2 drafts were healthy, those players would not have been available with the Sixers picked, further demonstrating that they lucked out in getting Noel and Embiid. 
As for picking Wiggins instead of Embiid if Embiid was healthy and went #1 that draft -- it's not likely.  pretty sure Bucks would have snatched him up instead of Parker.  Not saying that getting Parker wouldn't have been good for them but he's not as desirable as a player or as a trade chip as Embiid.

my point to the whole discussion is that pointing at Philly as the template to follow for rebuilding is flawed thinking if their luck is ignored when it came to who was available at their slot that were projected to go before then.   If Noel is healthy, do you really think Cleveland passes on him to still take Bennett?  I seriously doubt it.  As mentioned above, no way Minny or Milwaukee would have let Embiid slide to the 3rd pick for Philly if he was healthy.

Re: New article takes in depth look at 76ers strategy
« Reply #53 on: March 04, 2015, 10:39:21 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8113
  • Tommy Points: 549
I'm way to lazy to do it myself but I'd love to see somebody take on the fact that the media types who seem most in love with Hinkie's strategy appear to be the analytics crowd.  But I've never seen anyone actually crunch the numbers on whether what Hinkie is doing will lead to any statistically meaningful advantages.  Like how much of a correlation can you draw in NBA history between having one of the bottom two records in a season and getting a franchise-level star in the draft because of it.

Mike

Duncan's the easy one (obviously). Hakeem.

If you give me a barometer of 'franchise level' I can whip something up. It's a slow day for me.

Nope, Duncan does not count.  San Antonio only had the third worst record in the league, they won 5 and 6 more games than the bottom two teams and had only one more loss than the 4th worst record.

And since the pro-tanking argument is all about championships, the standard should probably be best player on a team that makes it to the Finals with the team that drafted him.

Mike
Well I know the Cavs did that.  They tied for the worst record in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Lebron, and reached the finals in Lebron's 4th season (same draft the Heat had the 4th worst record and drafted Wade).

Magic were the 2nd worst team in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Shaq, and reached the finals in Shaq's 3rd season (it did help that they won the lottery the next year after barely missing the playoffs).

Houston was the worst team in the league took Ralph Sampson at #1 and then was the 2nd worst team in the league the next year and took Hakeem at #1.  That seemed to work out fairly well for them. 

It is much more about being bad in the right draft then being bad. 
very true about getting the top pick in the right draft. 

The Magic, Spurs and Houston examples are what I would consider tainted examples of this process.  Each team had multiple lottery wins and other top picks in very good drafts to get to success. 
Houston had Sampson AND Rodney Mccray before getting Olajuwon.
Spurs had Robinson before getting really lucky for Duncan
Orlando landed the top pick after having Shaq to flip it for Penny and assets. 

to look at Philly, their top 4 "prizes" so far have been
1. MCW who's been shipped out after winning ROY in a weak draft class (and personally, I think it should have gone to Oladipo)
2. Noel who slipped to 6 after a knee injury.  if healthy, he's taken probably #1 well ahead of Bennett who'd possibly have been the player taken at 6 --> how'd the Sixers look now if THAT had been the player they'd taken?
3. Embiid who would have gone number 1 if healthy.  they still would have gotten either Wiggins or Parker but if it'd been Parker, they'd have lost him to injury for the year.  would have had a good player but not a center that other teams want.
4. Saric who's yet to play a game for them and not a sure thing to leave Europe to join their dumpster fire of a team. 
So, if things played out as though no players were injured, Philly would have MCW, Bennett, Parker and Saric.  With that roster, would anyone truly be advocating that Philly has a great game plan for improvement?

Are you even serious with the bold parts? The Sixers we're the first team to bite the bullet on an injured Noel. That's why they have him, and how on Earth do you know that Bennett is the pick there? Or if they even make the trade to begin with?  The idea that they'd have done everything exactly same with those guys is extreely far fetched. Maybe they take Gobert since they wouldn't have had a center. Maybe they keep Elfrid Payton instead of trading him to the Magic. Maybe they take Wiggins because everybody and their mother was saying the Bucks wanted Jabari regardless of who the top pick was.

But yes, if you're allowed to make your fantasy universe where you can make things go worst case scenario for other NBA franchises then sure. They'd be in trouble.

If KG hurt his knee a year earlier then Ainge tanked for nothing in 2007... What an idiot! That didn't happen though. So it's a pretty ridiculous argument.
my goodness, you really are a Philly fan.  if nothing else, you're certainly consistent in your defense of their 'plan'.

nothing ridiculous about what I said.  what's unrealistic about Noel going higher than #6 if he's healthy?  the answer, nothing.

What's untrue about Embiid going higher if healthy?  nothing.

bottom line, Philly has 'lucked' out in these drafts not because they got the top pick but that the top prospect in the drafts fell to them due to injury concerns.  that's not planning or strategy, just plain luck.  Sure, the players I proposed they end up taking if Noel/Embiid aren't injured could have been different from what I suggested but have to put something out there and it was a reasonable option.   To suggest that Philly has Noel and Embiid through master planning/strategy is ignoring reality

You can if and but every single plan in the NBA. Congratulations, if things had been different they'd be different... That proved something I guess?

Who is suggesting it was master planning? They took who they thought was the BPA at every spot they drafted, and in two cases they were able to get talents at lower than expected slots because they we're willing to accept missed time due to injuries. It's what a team with the luxury of rebuilding without some sort of stupid "win now" edict from ownership has the luxury of doing.

If they didn't draft Embiid they'd probably have drafted Andrew Wiggins. I'm not sure how that strengthens your argument.

you guessed right - it did prove my argument.  try as they might to get the top pick, that didn't work.  so that strategy didn't work as planned.  also, if the top prospects in those 2 drafts were healthy, those players would not have been available with the Sixers picked, further demonstrating that they lucked out in getting Noel and Embiid. 
As for picking Wiggins instead of Embiid if Embiid was healthy and went #1 that draft -- it's not likely.  pretty sure Bucks would have snatched him up instead of Parker.  Not saying that getting Parker wouldn't have been good for them but he's not as desirable as a player or as a trade chip as Embiid.

my point to the whole discussion is that pointing at Philly as the template to follow for rebuilding is flawed thinking if their luck is ignored when it came to who was available at their slot that were projected to go before then.   If Noel is healthy, do you really think Cleveland passes on him to still take Bennett?  I seriously doubt it.  As mentioned above, no way Minny or Milwaukee would have let Embiid slide to the 3rd pick for Philly if he was healthy.
There is always an element of luck involved.  The fact is Philly got the 3rd pick by tanking.  That put them in the position to draft a top 3 player.  How would they have been better off by not tanking and ending up picking a lesser player around 6th or 7th? 

Re: New article takes in depth look at 76ers strategy
« Reply #54 on: March 05, 2015, 12:38:58 AM »

Offline RAAAAAAAANDY

  • NCE
  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 995
  • Tommy Points: 57
I'm way to lazy to do it myself but I'd love to see somebody take on the fact that the media types who seem most in love with Hinkie's strategy appear to be the analytics crowd.  But I've never seen anyone actually crunch the numbers on whether what Hinkie is doing will lead to any statistically meaningful advantages.  Like how much of a correlation can you draw in NBA history between having one of the bottom two records in a season and getting a franchise-level star in the draft because of it.

Mike

Duncan's the easy one (obviously). Hakeem.

If you give me a barometer of 'franchise level' I can whip something up. It's a slow day for me.

Nope, Duncan does not count.  San Antonio only had the third worst record in the league, they won 5 and 6 more games than the bottom two teams and had only one more loss than the 4th worst record.

And since the pro-tanking argument is all about championships, the standard should probably be best player on a team that makes it to the Finals with the team that drafted him.

Mike
Well I know the Cavs did that.  They tied for the worst record in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Lebron, and reached the finals in Lebron's 4th season (same draft the Heat had the 4th worst record and drafted Wade).

Magic were the 2nd worst team in the league, landed the #1 pick, took Shaq, and reached the finals in Shaq's 3rd season (it did help that they won the lottery the next year after barely missing the playoffs).

Houston was the worst team in the league took Ralph Sampson at #1 and then was the 2nd worst team in the league the next year and took Hakeem at #1.  That seemed to work out fairly well for them. 

It is much more about being bad in the right draft then being bad. 
very true about getting the top pick in the right draft. 

The Magic, Spurs and Houston examples are what I would consider tainted examples of this process.  Each team had multiple lottery wins and other top picks in very good drafts to get to success. 
Houston had Sampson AND Rodney Mccray before getting Olajuwon.
Spurs had Robinson before getting really lucky for Duncan
Orlando landed the top pick after having Shaq to flip it for Penny and assets. 

to look at Philly, their top 4 "prizes" so far have been
1. MCW who's been shipped out after winning ROY in a weak draft class (and personally, I think it should have gone to Oladipo)
2. Noel who slipped to 6 after a knee injury.  if healthy, he's taken probably #1 well ahead of Bennett who'd possibly have been the player taken at 6 --> how'd the Sixers look now if THAT had been the player they'd taken?
3. Embiid who would have gone number 1 if healthy.  they still would have gotten either Wiggins or Parker but if it'd been Parker, they'd have lost him to injury for the year.  would have had a good player but not a center that other teams want.
4. Saric who's yet to play a game for them and not a sure thing to leave Europe to join their dumpster fire of a team. 
So, if things played out as though no players were injured, Philly would have MCW, Bennett, Parker and Saric.  With that roster, would anyone truly be advocating that Philly has a great game plan for improvement?

Are you even serious with the bold parts? The Sixers we're the first team to bite the bullet on an injured Noel. That's why they have him, and how on Earth do you know that Bennett is the pick there? Or if they even make the trade to begin with?  The idea that they'd have done everything exactly same with those guys is extreely far fetched. Maybe they take Gobert since they wouldn't have had a center. Maybe they keep Elfrid Payton instead of trading him to the Magic. Maybe they take Wiggins because everybody and their mother was saying the Bucks wanted Jabari regardless of who the top pick was.

But yes, if you're allowed to make your fantasy universe where you can make things go worst case scenario for other NBA franchises then sure. They'd be in trouble.

If KG hurt his knee a year earlier then Ainge tanked for nothing in 2007... What an idiot! That didn't happen though. So it's a pretty ridiculous argument.
my goodness, you really are a Philly fan.  if nothing else, you're certainly consistent in your defense of their 'plan'.

nothing ridiculous about what I said.  what's unrealistic about Noel going higher than #6 if he's healthy?  the answer, nothing.

What's untrue about Embiid going higher if healthy?  nothing.

bottom line, Philly has 'lucked' out in these drafts not because they got the top pick but that the top prospect in the drafts fell to them due to injury concerns.  that's not planning or strategy, just plain luck.  Sure, the players I proposed they end up taking if Noel/Embiid aren't injured could have been different from what I suggested but have to put something out there and it was a reasonable option.   To suggest that Philly has Noel and Embiid through master planning/strategy is ignoring reality

You can if and but every single plan in the NBA. Congratulations, if things had been different they'd be different... That proved something I guess?

Who is suggesting it was master planning? They took who they thought was the BPA at every spot they drafted, and in two cases they were able to get talents at lower than expected slots because they we're willing to accept missed time due to injuries. It's what a team with the luxury of rebuilding without some sort of stupid "win now" edict from ownership has the luxury of doing.

If they didn't draft Embiid they'd probably have drafted Andrew Wiggins. I'm not sure how that strengthens your argument.

you guessed right - it did prove my argument.  try as they might to get the top pick, that didn't work.  so that strategy didn't work as planned.  also, if the top prospects in those 2 drafts were healthy, those players would not have been available with the Sixers picked, further demonstrating that they lucked out in getting Noel and Embiid. 
As for picking Wiggins instead of Embiid if Embiid was healthy and went #1 that draft -- it's not likely.  pretty sure Bucks would have snatched him up instead of Parker.  Not saying that getting Parker wouldn't have been good for them but he's not as desirable as a player or as a trade chip as Embiid.

my point to the whole discussion is that pointing at Philly as the template to follow for rebuilding is flawed thinking if their luck is ignored when it came to who was available at their slot that were projected to go before then.   If Noel is healthy, do you really think Cleveland passes on him to still take Bennett?  I seriously doubt it.  As mentioned above, no way Minny or Milwaukee would have let Embiid slide to the 3rd pick for Philly if he was healthy.

Would you seriously like me to go back through every draft and nitpick why guys were or were not available? Why teams did or did not have picks. That logic applies to every draft pick in the history of the NBA. It has nothing to do with the Sixers.

The Sixers weren't trying to get the top pick, you can't try to get the top pick. The top team in the lottery has like a 25% chance. For you to think that brings an entirely new level of stupidity to the criticism of this plan. They wanted a high pick. They got one.

And if you think that the vast majority of the press heading into the draft wasn't that the Bucks were all in on Parker I'd suggest you do a google search. The Bucks were taking him regardless.