Search results

For those in the know on the '26 draft, how deep is it said to be? I know of AJ, Cam, Peterson being mentioned as potentially very high-level. Where does it go after that -- say 4-8?

I think they got a few guys back (or at least back in the groove) that they really need defensively since we saw them. Most important may be DFS (think he missed against us). Just uber smart and uber versatile defensively, and not a bad shooter, to boot.

Yep. But even the Spurs are beginning to show the difference between getting lucky when you still have a good /great team and getting lucky when you've mostly emptied the cupboard. With Duncan it was full speed ahead. With Wemby there have been (and may possibly yet be) more speedbumps along...

I don't know how many times I have to say it. I'm not anti-tanking. I'm anti-overrating tanking. (OK, I am anti-tanking as a matter of principle. I think it's bad for the league. I think we need to change the system that rewards tanking. But I'm not against the Jazz tanking under the league...

I don't doubt that he does. But I suspect he'd be the first to tell you need a lot of luck for something like this to happen again. With the Celtics, he placed a short-bet on the Nets. He won that bet. He also won the subsequent drafts. Now they have a championship. With the Jazz, he seems to...

What is that model? Is it just one? Though I think that tanking can be generally called a "model," I tend not to like using the term "model" to describe how teams succeed. I think success is too varied and complex most of the time to fall under the label of "model". We need to succeed at a lot...

Not sure where to start here: You seem to be moving the goalposts. My argument was about bottom-5 league finishes (since I think that's what most people around here would argue is a proper tank). Now you're saying bottom-5 conference finish (this encompasses several of your examples -- esp...

My comment about the different model wasn't about the Jazz. It was about whether the model works in the NBA as a whole (that's 30 times more data than the Jazz's history provides in the same time period -- a much better sample size). The model (at least at its most optimistic) hasn't worked for...

I did mention about a page back that the new CBAs are part of changed (and ever-changing NBA landscapes). But whether they mean more or less need for tanking (or more correctly, based on the point of the OP, more or less success from tanking) is something that's above my paygrade to answer.

It's going to take a lot of creativity. Maybe there's no such thing as one correct path. I don't pretend to know the answer for the Jazz's case, but when the old model (finish bottom five, grab a top draft pick and then, if lucky, have that player lead you to a championship) hasn't worked for...

And we haven't even mentioned how the changed lotto odds impact the results obtained from bottom-5 finishes. Or how CBA changes have made it more difficult to consolidate power at the top. Or how having more teams in the league may impact things. I guess my point is that there's a real argument...

I think your point is correct. I think it's more than this, as well -- perhaps the way skill sets are used in the NBA, or maybe also a bigger pool of players that are competing for limited NBA spots -- that lead to this change. I have done a small study on how the value of higher picks compared...

It's cherry picking in a sense, of course. But it's cherry picking because I think it's the exact pattern most of us (me included) hope to obtain with this tank. Isn't it worth knowing how things have gone recently in producing this pattern? We're not out here talking much about how we can...

I'm glad you're responding with real (and good) data. I do think more recent data matters more than older data. It's a different league in many ways than it was for the generation drafted in the 20th century. But we'll have to wait 20 more years to see if the tide turns once again more toward...

Yeah, probably no better time for Alex to leave.

I don't think I'm overlooking anything. I don't disagree with anything you say here. I'm actually totally with you and others like @SoberasHotRod and @KqWIN (though I clearly annoy him and others). I think you guys perfectly understand what's at stake. Tanking is a valid tool, one that's...

Does this bit of data help you all feel better? I wouldn't want anyone to lose faith in the prevailing (mostly data-free, beyond that it's better in a vacuum to have higher odds and higher picks) narrative about the value of tanking: Out of the past 25 NBA champions, 8 of the teams (nearly 1/3)...

We're hoping that a bottom-5 finish allows us to draft up a player who can eventually become the top player on a championship team for us. Though it's hard to think soberly about this with the narrative that tanking is self-evidently the best path to a championship (or only path for small...

Yes, you didn't use "massive". Apologies if I implied that you did. But the argument that we're both participating in started with a post that did use that term so I felt the issue was still in play.

I'd argue that this is the wrong way to see it. The difference of 3.5% is the same whether it's 1% vs 4.5%, 76% vs 79.5%, or 10.5% vs. 14%. Having the odds go your way with just a 3.5% better chance is not nothing (and thus we're still tanking), but it's simply a small difference and is far...