Search results

I'm way behind on watching guys this year, but got around to watching a Fears game yesterday. Liked what I saw more than I had expected. I see how people can "see it" with him.

No clue (Although I'm inclined to believe that individual real NBA scouts have much more varied boards than we sometimes imagine, based on what the leading draft sites present).

Well, at least it's a different opinion ...

I know conventions are hard to change, but I think I'd prefer verticals to be measured in how high a player can touch. I think something like 11'7" would tell us more about the impact a player might have than 35".

50/50?

Andy Larsen shows up occasionally in surprising situations.

Totally right on the size. He's not Kevin Durant size, but those who thought he was were setting up unrealistic expectations about him. As for "slipping": don't know if it's coincidence or causal, but this board seems more in line with Tony Jones than many other folks are. As TJ wonders if Tre...

I'm semi-convinced that because these strategies don't have a nice, tidy label a lot of people will be convinced that these strategies can't work because they aren't real strategies. One thing "tanking" has going for it is that it has a simple label that encompasses a simple, easy-to-understand...

So the lower seeds have collectively gone 5-0 vs. the higher seeds in this second round so far? :oops:

Don't disagree, but we still have a long way to go before we know if this game is an anomaly or a harbinger.

Thunder spent the season blowing good teams out in the 4th quarter, even when they played with their food much of the game. But playoffs are a different animal. (Kind of weird mixing of metaphors here)

Boston was precisely the team the Knicks were built to compete against, I think. So far, so good.

So (according to this aggregation)?: Great #1 Very good #2 Iffy, but high potential #3-4 (and maybe draft sites like Ace better than some teams do) Big mess of crapshoots #5-rest of lottery (with Tre holding a somewhat better floor than the rest)

Never seen this site before, so I can't vouch for it, but it does say converts to 2028 2nd rounder: https://www.salaryswish.com/trades/players/derrick-favors But yeah, it seems to be the only one saying that that I can find.

The conclusion after watching the curb stomping the Thunder (the team of all the so-called tanking teams that depends on their "tank" the least) put on the Grizzlies is that we should have tanked more? This kind of logic is why I find trust in tanking to be more of an article of faith than...

3-point rate

Interesting. If I'm understanding right, these are not fully getting rid of tanking incentives, but rather having revenue sharing and tanking incentives be mutually exclusive or at least compete against each other more than currently, thus lowering the number of teams that will tank. Probably...

Thanks for the thoughts!! I think you've understood and analyzed it well. I think you're right it would create some weird dynamics, including the best teams perhaps trying to tank a bit toward the end in hopes that they can catch draft magic in the small, but slightly higher odds. I'm still...

All great thoughts. Thanks! I think any proposal is going to have advantages/disadvantages, advocates/detractors. But yeah, letting a top 10 team have a chance at the top spot will be unpopular (though I think it beats the wheel in this regard). For the second point: it may lead to some...

I have to admit that I'm surprised that everyone has just ignored my odds-flattening lottery rejiggering earlier in this thread that tries to do exactly this (is it because no one can read/fully comprehend tankathon-style odds?): while keeping the aspect of giving the worst teams the highest...