The Tank Thread

[TheNorthCydeRises]

If Ressler told the young Hawks this, why should fans continue to pay money to see home games?  You're talking about a $100 investment for most people not sitting in the worst seats in the house ( ticket, parking, food & drink, gas in car/MARTA ).   For an out of state fan like myself, it's $60 just for GAS, just to get to Atlanta and back home.  And I used to make 5 - 10 home games a year.   

My plan was to hit the Phoenix game next Sunday, coming back from Charlotte.  But why do it if both teams aren't even trying to win the game?  It'll be my luck that the Hawks would sit Dennis and the Suns would sit Booker.  Bud isn't going to play Collins more than 25 minutes in the game.  So why even pay money to see a bunch of bench players play, with both teams in tank mode?

People in Atlanta get criticized for their sports passion at times, but they also know what's up.  That's the one town that REFUSES to pay to see a bad product.  From a true fan standpoint, watching your team lose is not cool  . . . I don't care if you have DJ Toni K, or Tony the Tiger in the building.

[Watchman]

On 2/18/2018 at 9:50 PM, CBAreject said:

Of course you’re right, but honestly, it’s just sour grapes. People who have spent the last 2 decades railing against tanking can’t bear to see the most shameless example of it work out so amazingly well.  The Hawks have never truly committed to tanking.  The worst example was finally getting the #3 pick, using it on Gasol, and then trading him for mediocrity (SAR).  Babcock loved trading away high picks—he shipped two of them for Lorenzen Wright (RIP).  That mentality, though, won’t die.  So many fans would trade a chance at a contender for a 44-win team that gets bounced in the first round.  They’re entitled to that preference; I just don’t understand it.  

Well, let's see...30 wins in 55 games projects out to 44 - 45 wins, with a likely first round exit.  Four years of crap to get back to that same point again?

[KB21]

On 2/18/2018 at 8:50 PM, CBAreject said:

Of course you’re right, but honestly, it’s just sour grapes. People who have spent the last 2 decades railing against tanking can’t bear to see the most shameless example of it work out so amazingly well.  The Hawks have never truly committed to tanking.  The worst example was finally getting the #3 pick, using it on Gasol, and then trading him for mediocrity (SAR).  Babcock loved trading away high picks—he shipped two of them for Lorenzen Wright (RIP).  That mentality, though, won’t die.  So many fans would trade a chance at a contender for a 44-win team that gets bounced in the first round.  They’re entitled to that preference; I just don’t understand it.  

Except that it hasn't worked, but people are going to continue to look and Embiid and Simmons and believe it worked.  It took them 5 years, 5 lottery picks, and 100s of losses to get two players, and they still have no hope of competing for a championship anytime soon with their core.

But let's continue this fantasy land ideal that tanking actually works while we watch Orlando operate their tank within a tank.

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Except that it hasn't worked, but people are going to continue to look and Embiid and Simmons and believe it worked.  It took them 5 years, 5 lottery picks, and 100s of losses to get two players, and they still have no hope of competing for a championship anytime soon with their core.

But let's continue this fantasy land ideal that tanking actually works while we watch Orlando operate their tank within a tank.

LOL  

 

I love watching anti-tanking people use examples like Orlando and Sacramento that sold out on the tank and traded away valuable young pieces to try to win now just like they think is the good idea.  It is always a bad idea to give away your lottery picks and talent while you are rebuilding like the Magic and Kings.  Trading for vets like Rajon Rondo and Serge Ibaka is just so stupid.   They tried to win too early and paid the price.  Meanwhile, tankers GS and CLE continue their uninterrupted half decade run of championships.

[KB21]

43 minutes ago, Watchman said:

Well, let's see...30 wins in 55 games projects out to 44 - 45 wins, with a likely first round exit.  Four years of crap to get back to that same point again?

The response you will get is that their upside is higher and will continue to get better, but the fact is, it took them 5 years after bottoming out just to get to the 44 win point.  The data proves you have twice as much of a chance of competing for a championship within the next 5 years if you are a 40 plus win team than you do if you are a sub 25 win team, and a big reason for that is that when you bottom out, it usually takes you 5 years to get back to where you were.  

But make no mistake about it, the point of the Hawks tank job is more about controlling costs in the presence of rising revenues to generate more profit, and that profit will likely be shuttled off to the Gulch Project Ressler is doing.  It's clearly not about building a championship contender.

[KB21]

1 minute ago, AHF said:

LOL  

 

I love watching anti-tanking people use examples like Orlando and Sacramento that sold out on the tank and traded away valuable young pieces to try to win now just like they think is the good idea.  It is always a bad idea to give away your lottery picks and talent while you are rebuilding like the Magic and Kings.  Trading for vets like Rajon Rondo and Serge Ibaka is just so stupid.   They tried to win too early and paid the price.  Meanwhile, tankers GS and CLE continue their uninterrupted half decade run of championships.

It cracks me up to see people use Golden State and Cleveland as examples of why tanking works.  Apparently, that means the Hawks will either get lucky after spending 15 plus years in the lottery like Golden State did, or LeBron James is going to have sentimentality for the city and sign a free agent contract with the Hawks.

Hey folks!  Tanking works!  All you have to do is sign LeBron James in free agency.

[DBac]

51 minutes ago, Watchman said:

Well, let's see...30 wins in 55 games projects out to 44 - 45 wins, with a likely first round exit.  Four years of crap to get back to that same point again?

Sixers have played the toughest schedule in the NBA so far this year. So I wouldn't be surprised to see them get more than that. They have the weakest strength of schedule remaining.

 

(Also of note: the Hawks have played the third weakest schedule so far and have the third hardest schedule coming up)

 

And of course they have upside to get better. Embiid still hasn't played 82 games, this is Simmons rookie year. That's the difference between them winning 45 games and the Hawks winning 43 games last year. The Hawks were one of the oldest teams in basketball and cap strapped.

[AHF]

16 minutes ago, KB21 said:

It cracks me up to see people use Golden State and Cleveland as examples of why tanking works.  Apparently, that means the Hawks will either get lucky after spending 15 plus years in the lottery like Golden State did, or LeBron James is going to have sentimentality for the city and sign a free agent contract with the Hawks.

Hey folks!  Tanking works!  All you have to do is sign LeBron James in free agency.

I don't know how you argue tanking didn't work for them.  You have nothing but tankers the last few years. 

You have to go back to the Spurs who used 2 #1 overall picks along with a #3 overall pick to win their first ring and kickstart their success.  #1, #1, #3.  And the #1 and #3 that started their build had to go 9 years before winning a ring but of course Philly should already have their ring in their third year after taking Embiid, right?

[High5]

3 hours ago, Watchman said:

Well, let's see...30 wins in 55 games projects out to 44 - 45 wins, with a likely first round exit.  Four years of crap to get back to that same point again?

Winning 45+ games with two young superstar talents and a 19 year old #1 pick on the sidelines is a great position to be in. Not to mention they get LAL's lottery pick this season. I also wouldn't say "likely" first round exit. They're a good team with Embiid in the lineup (27-17) and only 2 games out of the 4th seed. They're going to be a threat to anyone in the East as long as he's healthy enough to play.

[lethalweapon3]

No idea if I'm drive-by-reading the graphic right, but the relative SOS looks good "going forward" for Hawkspick, and particularly good for Rocketspick and Wolvespick. Other factors involved but this element, in a vacuum, seems encouraging.

~lw3

[lethalweapon3]

Playing around with numbers...

(using Tankathon table of Draft Pick odds, the "Base Odds Without Ties" table at the bottom; "Draft Slots" refer to pre-lottery positions)

http://www.tankathon.com/pick_odds

1^st Draft Slot

Good: Obviously, highest probability of finishing with 1-seed (25.0%).

Not-So-Good: Highest risk of finishing with 2-seed (21.5%), 3-seed (17.8%), or 4-seed (35.7%); Greater-than-50% chance of finishing with 3-or-4-seed (53.5%).

 

2^nd Draft Slot

Good: Chance of falling three seeds down (12.3%) nearly three times less likely than it is for 1^st slot (35.7%).

Not-So-Good: Less-than-40% chance (38.7%) of finishing with Top-2 seed.

 

3^rd Draft Slot

Good: Less-than-5% chance (4.0%) of falling three seeds down.

Not-So-Good: Less-than-50% chance (46.9%) of finishing with Top-3 seed; Highest slot where probability of remaining at-seed (15.6%) is less than chance of falling one seed down (22.6%).

  

4^th Draft Slot

Good: Lowest slot with a greater likelihood of rising to Top-3 seed (37.8%) than falling one seed down (35.1%).

Not-So-Good: Lowest likelihood of remaining at-seed (9.9%), and large probabilistic drop-off when compared to 5^th slot (26.1%) and 3^rd slot (15.6%); Greater-than-50% chance of dropping down one or two seeds (51.1%).

 

5^th Draft Slot

Good: Chance of winning 1-seed (8.8%) equivalent to chance of falling at least two seeds.

Not-So-Good: Lowest slot where probability of remaining at-seed (26.1%) is less than chance of falling one seed down (36.0%).

 

6^th Draft Slot

Good: Chance of winning 1-seed (6.3%) greater than chance of falling at least two seeds (4.1%).

Not-So-Good: Highest slot where likelihood of staying at-seed is below 50% (43.9%).

~lw3

[lethalweapon3]

 "Best ice cream flavor? Oh, I always stick with Pistachio!"

~budthetankdoctor

[CBAreject]

7 hours ago, Watchman said:

Well, let's see...30 wins in 55 games projects out to 44 - 45 wins, with a likely first round exit.  Four years of crap to get back to that same point again?

You know very well that the Sixers aren’t maxed out with 45 wins.  As has already been mentioned, I’m talking about a mediocre 44-win team of veterans with no cap and no draft prospects—remember last year’s team?  That team actually epitomized the Hawks of the last 25 years.

 

Pete Babcock tried to build that sort of team repeatedly.   Even when we ended up in the lottery it was because his experiment of trading an aging core for younger mediocre players failed so badly.  There was a point when our best player was Jason Terry and all anybody could talk about was adding Austin Croshere with our cap room.  All of these efforts to win now and blow our draft capital and cap room on mediocrity begets mediocrity.  I’m quite sick of it.

[lethalweapon3]

"THE FIRST RULE ABOUT TANKCLUB IS..."

~lw3

[AHF]

23 minutes ago, lethalweapon3 said:

"THE FIRST RULE ABOUT TANKCLUB IS..."

~lw3

Cuban fined for being honest.  Everyone else says same thing but not in public.  News to no-one.  

[High5]

And that's why the GM/owner/coach saying the team isn't tanking doesn't actually meaning anything. 

[lethalweapon3]

Closest tight-rope I've heard so far from Hawks Inc came from Koonin back in January when, during the Dawg's football's playoff run, suggested to 92.9's Dukes and Bell that while UGA is going for the Rose Bowl, [paraphrasing] we're at the Poulan WeedEater Bowl stage right now.

~lw3

[Lurker]

My personal thought: I don't have any issue at all with "starting veterans", but it's just very bizarre that said veterans continue to play 30+ minutes in a lot of cases. Especially when they aren't bringing anything more to the table outside of a veteran voice.

Starting a guy like Ersan is fine, but he should only play 15-20 minutes, max.

I do think there is some truth to the need of veterans, but while basketball is not a if you're good you're good sport like football...it's not far away. Either you can play or you can't play.

[AHF]

I am totally behind the  young guys getting a ton of burn the rest of the way.  The vets have been there to ease them in most of the season but now give Collins, Dorsey, Prince, Bembry, etc. all the minutes they can handle (as long as it doesn't start generating wins).

[Lurker]

I've been busy and it's kept me from watching at times but it wouldn't take much more than giving John Collins more burn, letting Tyler Dorsey see more minutes, for example to make me make time to see how they look.