The Tank Thread

[AHF]

This is the tank thread so you will get some cyclical debates on here.  Discussions about potential picks and free agents won't be in this thread.  Probably will see more discussion on the main board around draft picks once we are officially out of the playoffs.

[KB21]

2 minutes ago, AtlKauzie said:

This is what I've tried to do since i started posting here, im starting to to think it's a futal effort at this point.

That's right.  Tanking is a futile effort.

[CBAreject]

There were two moves that committed us to tanking and both occurred in the 2016 offseason:  signing Dwight Howard and extending Kent Bazemore.  Once that was done, we were locked into mediocrity with no avenue to contention.  Look at that list of salaries—40 million going to two players that aren’t game changers.  I wasn’t posting here at the time, but I told some friends of mine the minute I saw the Bazemore deal that we would regret it immensely.  

Anyway, all this to say that from my POV, we’re debating the course of action not from the 2017 offseason but the 2016 offseason.  Potential moves from 2017 are just deck chairs on the Titanic. 

Edited February 28, 2018 by CBAreject

[AtlKauzie]

9 minutes ago, KB21 said:

That's right.  Tanking is a futile effort.

Not every topic has to round back to tanking.(im not trying to be negative) but its usually started by you tbh.

[davis171]

5 minutes ago, CBAreject said:

There were two moves that committed us to tanking and both occurred in the 2016 offseason:  signing Dwight Howard and extending Kent Bazemore.  Once that was done, we were locked into mediocrity with no avenue to contention.  Look at that list of salaries—40 million going to two players that aren’t game changers.  I wasn’t posting here at the time, but I told some friends of mine the minute I saw the Bazemore deal that we would regret it immensely.  

Anyway, all this to say that from my POV, we’re debating the course of action not from the 2017 offseason but the 2016 offseason.  Potential moves from 2017 are just deck chairs on the Titanic. 

Crazy though that the rockets gave the same offer to Baze! Imagine the NBA landscape had Houston landed him the trade for CP3 wouldn't have worked idk interesting to think about. EDIT not saying signing Baze was a smart idea.

Edited February 28, 2018 by davis171

[AHF]

29 minutes ago, davis171 said:

Crazy though that the rockets gave the same offer to Baze! Imagine the NBA landscape had Houston landed him the trade for CP3 wouldn't have worked idk interesting to think about. EDIT not saying signing Baze was a smart idea.

Rockets would have #$*&'d themselves.  Instead we did.

[KB21]

55 minutes ago, AtlKauzie said:

Not every topic has to round back to tanking.(im not trying to be negative) but its usually started by you tbh.

Considering that the decision to tank basically removes all hope from the franchise, everything does revolve around it.  

[MaceCase]

2 hours ago, TheFuzz said:

Random thought, and let me preface this with saying that I'm ok with where we're at right now, but...

I was against tanking before the season because of players like Donovan Mitchell. There's a stud in the middle of the draft almost every year it seems. Having said that, we're here at the bottom now and might as well ride it out to pick someone good.

I was too, after all Gordon Hayward (9th), Paul George (10th), Klay Thompson (11th), Kawhi (15th), Giannis (15th), Dario Saric (12th),  Devin Booker (13th), Domantas Sabonis (11th), and Mitchell (13th) were all selected late in the lottery or the earliest pick in the non-lottery.  The problem was here are where the Hawks picks were in all of those respective drafts: 24th*, 18th*, 16th*, 15th, 15th, 12th*, 19th. 

All things being said, I don't mind if the Hawks picked in the range that those players were selected, I just don't want it at the expense of skirting the luxury tax to do so and I certainly don't want to have it that the Hawks are trading away picks in that range to justify keeping a high salary team together *cough*Hardaway*cough*.

[AtlKauzie]

28 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Considering that the decision to tank basically removes all hope from the franchise, everything does revolve around it.  

So by that logic anything that happens from now on will somehow correlate with tanking? Gotcha, so next time coach bud farts i can blame it on tanking. Thanks for the heads up.

Edited February 28, 2018 by AtlKauzie

[CBAreject]

21 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

I was too, after all Gordon Hayward (9th), Paul George (10th), Klay Thompson (11th), Kawhi (15th), Giannis (15th), Dario Saric (12th),  Devin Booker (13th), Domantas Sabonis (11th), and Mitchell (13th) were all selected late in the lottery or the earliest pick in the non-lottery.

This is true.  There is are one or two steals per draft that come outside the top 5-10 picks.  Sometimes it comes in the second round (Millsap).  We may have hit one in Collins, but time will tell.

The problem is, hindsight tells you it was easy to pick that guy.  In practice, more than half the league missed on that guy and drafted Adrian Payne.  You have an exponentially greater chance to hit as you climb the draft.  Even in the second round, the steals tend to come in the upper half of the round.  There are no guarantees—you might draft Shellhead #5 or Jimmy Butler #30—but the odds are in your favor at the top.   

[KB21]

The odds are also greater that you are going to get an Andrew Wiggins, Anthony Bennett, Jabari Parker, D'Angelo Russell with a top pick rather than a Karl Anthony Towns.

[AHF]

9 minutes ago, KB21 said:

The odds are also greater that you are going to get an Andrew Wiggins, Anthony Bennett, Jabari Parker, D'Angelo Russell with a top pick rather than a Karl Anthony Towns.

http://82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

Average stats and odds of getting a "star" (as defined by 82 games) by pick.  Based on 20 years of data.

 

Average Career Stats by draft pick number
Pick	#	Gms	Min	Pts	Reb	Ast	Rtg	Star	Solid	RoleP	DeepB	Bust	DNP
1	20	555	32.9	16.6	7.8	2.7	27	70%	25%	5%
2	20	583	29.6	12.9	5.9	2.8	21.6	60%	25%	15%
3	20	535	31.9	15.2	5.1	3.5	23.8	85%	10%	5%
4	20	585	30.5	13.7	5.5	3.1	22.2	60%	30%	10%
5	20	552	28.7	13.4	4.9	2.7	21.1	60%	15%	10%	15%
6	20	406	25.4	10.2	4.6	1.7	16.5	25%	30%	30%	15%
7	20	483	26.8	10.9	4.3	2.6	17.8	30%	40%	25%	5%
8	20	397	22.9	9.3	3.9	1.9	15.2	35%	15%	15%	35%
9	20	460	23.1	10.2	4.9	1.6	16.6	30%	10%	35%	20%	5%
10	20	497	24.6	10.2	4.4	2.2	16.7	35%	25%	25%	10%	5%
11	20	389	19.4	7.5	3.5	1.4	12.4	15%	15%	30%	35%		5%
12	20	372	18.8	6.6	3.7	1.3	11.6	5%	15%	40%	30%	10%
13	20	447	22.7	9.8	3.7	1.9	15.4	20%	35%	15%	30%
14	20	312	21.1	8.8	3	1.9	13.7	25%	20%	25%	10%	20%
15	20	348	17.4	6.6	2.9	1.4	10.8	10%	15%	30%	20%	20%	5%
16	20	364	18.2	7.2	2.8	1.6	11.7	5%	25%	30%	25%	15%
17	20	397	20.3	8.1	3.9	1.4	13.4	20%	15%	20%	45%
18	20	317	17.4	6.6	3.1	0.9	10.7	5%	15%	25%	40%	15%
19	20	280	16.5	6.5	2.9	1	10.4	5%	15%	20%	50%	10%
20	20	253	16.8	6.2	2.7	1.3	10.2	5%	10%	35%	30%	20%
21	20	384	20.8	7.8	3.3	1.9	13.1	10%	40%	20%	15%	15%
22	20	225	16.9	5.6	3	1.2	9.8		20%	15%	65%
23	20	368	19.4	6.8	3.1	1.4	11.4		20%	50%	15%	15%
24	20	350	20.6	7.9	3	2.1	13	15%	25%	20%	35%		5%
25	20	218	14.6	5.2	2.7	0.9	8.8	5%	5%	25%	50%	10%	5%
26	20	248	15.8	6	2.8	1.3	10.1	10%	5%	40%	15%	30%
27	20	293	15.5	5.3	2.9	1.2	9.4	5%	5%	25%	60%	5%
28	20	250	13.3	5.1	1.9	1.4	8.4	5%	10%	15%	45%	15%	10%
29	20	260	12.1	4.1	2.3	0.8	7.3	5%	10%	10%	30%	20%	25%
30	20	250	14.1	5.2	2.6	1.1	8.9	5%	10%	25%	25%	15%	20%
31	20	146	12.1	4.1	1.9	0.8	6.8		5%	25%	25%	30%	15%
32	20	152	11.7	4	1.6	1	6.6	5%		15%	40%	35%	5%
33	20	144	10.6	3.3	2.1	0.7	6			10%	55%	35%
34	20	137	12.7	4.3	2.1	1.2	7.6	5%	5%	5%	55%	20%	10%
35	20	110	9.3	2.8	1.7	0.7	5.3		5%	5%	35%	35%	20%
36	20	140	8.8	3.4	1.5	0.7	5.5	5%		10%	30%	25%	30%
37	20	239	15	5.7	2.5	1.4	9.6	10%	10%	30%	25%	25%
38	20	161	10.3	3.2	1.4	1.1	5.7		5%	15%	35%	20%	25%
39	20	146	9.4	3.2	1.2	1	5.4		10%	10%	25%	30%	25%
40	20	134	11.5	4.3	1.7	1	7	10%		10%	40%	15%	25%
41	20	149	10.1	3.6	1.8	0.7	6	5%	10%	10%	20%	20%	35%
42	20	116	8.7	3.1	1.5	0.7	5.3	5%	5%	15%	10%	25%	40%
43	20	228	12.8	4.9	2.1	0.8	7.8	5%	5%	30%	20%	20%	20%
44	20	89	4.4	1.5	0.8	0.3	2.6			10%	20%	5%	65%
45	20	197	14	4.7	2.1	1	7.8		10%	25%	50%		15%
46	20	69	8	2.9	1.4	0.5	4.8		10%	5%	30%	20%	35%
47	20	145	12.2	4.6	2	1.2	7.8	5%	10%	20%	45%		20%
48	20	103	9	3.2	2	0.4	5.6	10%		15%	10%	25%	40%
49	20	117	8.8	2.8	1.5	0.8	5.1			25%	25%	15%	35%
50	20	49	5.5	2	1	0.3	3.2		5%		20%	30%	45%
51	20	86	6	2.1	0.9	0.5	3.5			10%	20%	20%	50%
52	20	116	7.1	2	1.1	0.6	3.8			10%	25%	30%	35%
53	20	56	5.1	1.5	0.8	0.4	2.6				30%	15%	55%
54	20	97	5.1	1.8	0.9	0.2	2.9			10%	15%	10%	65%
55	14	57	6.8	2.3	1.3	0.4	4		7%	7%	21%	14%	50%
56	14	51	6.9	2.3	1.3	0.6	4.3		7%		29%	29%	36%
57	14	43	5.1	1.9	1	0.5	3.3	7%			21%	14%	57%
58	11	46	2.2	0.7	0.5	0.1	1.3				9%	18%	73%
59	5	13	2.8	0.8	0.4	0.2	1.4					40%	60%
60	4	7	4.1	0.8	0.4	0.4	1.7					50%	50%

[AHF]

Here is a Yale study's graph of value by pick:

https://sports.sites.yale.edu/nba-draft-pick-value

Quote

For every Rookie of the Year since 1952, I awarded one point to their numerical draft pick. I awarded two points for an MVP (with data since 1955), three points for a finals MVP (with data since 1968), and 1/6 of a point for a simple all-star appearance (data taken among all active players) because there are of course 24 players taken per year. Summing the resulting values for each pick presented a sort of star player index, giving much more weight to players like Lebron James and other all-star game regulars who have perennially appeared near the top of the voting for the league MVP, much more valuable than a player who makes an all-star game during an irregular stand out season for them. I scaled all the values so the first pick is worth $100, then plotted all the data, seen in the red points on the graph below.

[AHF]

Of these two studies on pick value, I like the Yale one better as it scales the difference in value between Tim Duncan and Antoine Walker whereas the 82games stat tiers do not distinguish between them.

[MaceCase]

36 minutes ago, CBAreject said:

This is true.  There is are one or two steals per draft that come outside the top 5-10 picks.  Sometimes it comes in the second round (Millsap).  We may have hit one in Collins, but time will tell.

The problem is, hindsight tells you it was easy to pick that guy.  In practice, more than half the league missed on that guy and drafted Adrian Payne.  You have an exponentially greater chance to hit as you climb the draft.  Even in the second round, the steals tend to come in the upper half of the round.  There are no guarantees—you might draft Shellhead #5 or Jimmy Butler #30—but the odds are in your favor at the top.   

We are both in agreement that it's better to be in a position to have your choice of the litter with your picks, something the Hawks were not as they toiled in the playoffs but I do have some confidence in the talent evaluation given that a few of those players (Kawhi, Giannis, Sabonis) were at least on members of the Hawks staff's board before being snatched up right beforehand.  Schlenk's selection of Collins also builds on that confidence despite the protest of a few that he's entirely clueless during this process.

[MaceCase]

23 minutes ago, AHF said:

Of these two studies on pick value, I like the Yale one better as it scales the difference in value between Tim Duncan and Antoine Walker whereas the 82games stat tiers do not distinguish between them.

I believe I already posed the question of how does one reconcile their evidence that tanking does not work with the overwhelming evidence that the higher in the draft you go the higher quality of player you are likely to receive about 50 pages ago.  I suppose as with your query as to how one would have constructed the current roster we'll continue to hear crickets on that front.  Confirmation bias at its finest, select data that supports one position and ignore all else.

[CBAreject]

14 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

I believe I already posed the question of how does one reconcile their evidence that tanking does not work with the overwhelming evidence that the higher in the draft you go the higher quality of player you are likely to receive about 50 pages ago.  I suppose as with your query as to how one would have constructed the current roster we'll continue to hear crickets on that front.  Confirmation bias at its finest, select data that supports one position and ignore all else.

A lot of it is that there have been teams that have been cellar dwellers for a decade or more at a time.  The idea is that once you go down among them, you never come back up.  And we did it just over 10 years ago, blew our highest choice (Marvin over Paul), and came out with a 50-win team just a few years later.  That was with Billy Knight drafting!

[KB21]

21 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

I believe I already posed the question of how does one reconcile their evidence that tanking does not work with the overwhelming evidence that the higher in the draft you go the higher quality of player you are likely to receive about 50 pages ago.  I suppose as with your query as to how one would have constructed the current roster we'll continue to hear crickets on that front.  Confirmation bias at its finest, select data that supports one position and ignore all else.

How do you reconcile that fact that getting the better chance to get a valuable player doesn't come with a better chance of winning games?  There's a reason teams who dip into the lottery stay there for years.

[AHF]

34 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

I believe I already posed the question of how does one reconcile their evidence that tanking does not work with the overwhelming evidence that the higher in the draft you go the higher quality of player you are likely to receive about 50 pages ago.  I suppose as with your query as to how one would have constructed the current roster we'll continue to hear crickets on that front.  Confirmation bias at its finest, select data that supports one position and ignore all else.

When your standard is that tanking must produce a championship by the 4th or 5th year of the process and you define tanking so that very short dips into the top of the lottery don't qualify as tanking, you will find that tanking never succeeds.

How you then turn around and suggest that a non-superstar roster that gets bounced in the early playoffs can turn into a champion where there is no historical precedent for that happening without having previously drafted at the top of the lottery (and then either flipped those picks for the superstar talent that led to the ring or drafted the superstar talent that led to the ring with that lottery dip) I do not know.

[terrell]

Hawks win. Boo!