Schlenk is not tanking! He’s Fishing!

[hazer]

With new lottery odds going into effect, Hawks won’t be trying as hard to lose as last year. With better depth and talent on the roster, they’ll win more games. 28 to be precise. Hawks land 8th in the lottery, Mavs 10th, Cavs 13th. Hawks will have 3 lottery picks in ‘19 and a shitton of cap space to sign 2 max players. They will return to playoffs in 3rd year of the retool in ‘19-‘20 in a weak East.

[Spud2nique]

Just now, kg01 said:

Wat?

He said Lin is a borderline all star ⭐️ in his family!

As the kids say...FIXED!

[kg01]

Just now, Spud2nique said:

He said Lin is a borderline all star ⭐️ in his family!

As the kids say...FIXED!

I dunno.  I heard Mama Lin got a wicked crossover.

[AHF]

3 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Picks? 1-3 more lotto picks. Years? One ☝️ I think we need to and will unintentionally tank this season and will be ready to go all in 2019-20. We need a year to learn, to turn the ball over, to take our bumps before we get better. Those are the things that champions go through imo.

Almost every champ has a couple seasons of 28 or so win play.  Get your lumps and learn from them.

[Spud2nique]

Just now, kg01 said:

I dunno.  I heard Mama Lin got a wicked crossover.

? does she bake ??... 

[Spud2nique]

Just now, AHF said:

Almost every champ has a couple seasons of 28 or so win play.  Get your lumps and learn from them.

That’s what I say as well. I’m trying to think of a team that was trying to skip steps..OH OH..the Nets in 2012....it didn’t work out..

[Peoriabird]

4 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Picks? 1-3 more lotto picks. Years? One ☝️ I think we need to and will unintentionally tank this season and will be ready to go all in 2019-20. We need a year to learn, to turn the ball over, to take our bumps before we get better. Those are the things that champions go through imo.

So you are saying that we need 1 more lottery choice?  I'm not understanding?

[Spud2nique]

9 minutes ago, Peoriabird said:

So you are saying that we need 1 more lottery choice?  I'm not understanding?

One more year of learning which will in turn result in a lottery pick of our own and possible from Dallas and Cavs as well.. 1-3 more or 1 year which is the same.

[sturt]

25 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Teams that bottomed out for draft picks:

Philadelphia 76ers: year 1- 19 wins, year 2 - 18 wins, year 3 - 10 wins, year 4 - 28 wins

Orlando Magic: year 1 - 20 wins, year 2 - 23 wins, year 3 - 35 wins, year 4 - 29 wins, year 5 - 25 wins

LA Lakers: year 1 - 27 wins, year 2 - 21 wins, year 3 - 17 wins, year 4 - 26 wins, year 5 - 35 wins

So, please give me an equal amount of teams who bottomed out and became .500 level teams in year 3 of their tank job to prove to me that it is just as likely as still being in the sub 30 win area in year 3.

When will you get it that my reply is automatically that your research data is victimized by too small... far too small... a sample in this current environment and too large a number of implicit and very important variables to yield any conclusion about this one case... ?

I know you're desperate to support your pessimism, but you abandon all common sense... or at least, that of someone with a graduate degree and who has almost had to have read enough research in his lifetime to understand this... in order to get to the conclusion you are dug-in and hellbent to establish.

[Peoriabird]

Just now, Spud2nique said:

One more year of learning which will in turn result in a lottery pick of our own and possible from Dallas and Cavs as well.. 1-3 more or 1 year which is the same.

So they don't necessarily have to be in the lottery next year if they are a quick learn and start to win this year.

[Spud2nique]

Just now, Peoriabird said:

So they don't necessarily have to be in the lottery next year if they are a quick learn and start to win this year.

If the young guys gel super fast, sure why not. I just don’t see this as the surprise style Hawks team that Bud took over in 2013 that made the 8th seed. That team had vets that contributed like Horford, Sap, DMC, Teague..

 

We have Trae, Huerter and Spellman. That alone would be 1/4 of our active roster when healthy. 

If we make the playoffs, then Trae Young will probably be the best rookie since 1979-80...aka Magic.

 

[Macknsweetjones]

Tank like hell to acquire RJ Barett with our pick...use the other 2 picks to move back up draft Bol Bol. Spend that money in FA in 2019/2020

[KB21]

7 minutes ago, sturt said:

When will you get it that my reply is automatically that your research data is victimized by too small... far too small... a sample in this current environment and too large a number of implicit and very important variables to yield any conclusion about this one case... ?

I know you're desperate to support your pessimism, but you abandon all common sense... or at least, that of someone with a graduate degree and who has almost had to have read enough research in his lifetime to understand this... in order to get to the conclusion you are dug-in and hellbent to establish.

My stance is backed up by the research, which to those who want this strategy to work so badly will continue to try and say there are sample size problems.  

Why is is so hard to admit that this has never worked for any team that has done it?

[sturt]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

My stance is backed up by the research, which to those who want this strategy to work so badly will continue to try and say there are sample size problems.  

Why is is so hard to admit that this has never worked for any team that has done it?

It's hard to admit... becaaaaauussse.... you're coming to a conclusion using data that is INHERENTLY flawed.

Why is it so hard to admit that the sample size is far too puny and the list of variables is far too long and salient to come to any real conclusion?

Maybe you need a review... pay close attention to the slides discussing internal and external validity, please.

http://www.sjsu.edu/people/fred.prochaska/courses/ScWk240/s1/ScWk-240-Week-5-2nd-Set-Slides---Internal-and-External-Validity.pdf

This is just Research Methods 501 stuff. C'mon man.

[EazyRoc]

12 hours ago, KB21 said:

Which is why this organization did not add any legitimate veteran talent this offseason and used their cap space to take on two bad contracts instead.

Also, don't try to diminish what Danny Ferry did during his time in Atlanta by trying to say Travis Schlenk is doing what he did only smarter.  Danny Ferry added players that can contribute to winning games.  Travis Schlenk has not added a single player that will help this team win.  Danny Ferry also did not bottom the organization out from a talent standpoint like Travis Schlenk did.  

Who could we have added that could have contributed to winning without being stuck with a bad contract ? 

[Flight]

I feel like after this next draft we'll probably have one more season of putting player development over competiting for the playoff spot. from then on I think we're aiming to compete for a playoff spot.

[KB21]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

It's hard to admit... becaaaaauussse.... you're coming to a conclusion using data that is INHERENTLY flawed.

Why is it so hard to admit that the sample size is far too puny and the list of variables is far too long and salient to come to any real conclusion?

Maybe you need a review... pay close attention to the slides discussing internal and external validity, please.

http://www.sjsu.edu/people/fred.prochaska/courses/ScWk240/s1/ScWk-240-Week-5-2nd-Set-Slides---Internal-and-External-Validity.pdf

This is just Research Methods 501 stuff. C'mon man.

When I have a drug rep telling me how great his medicine is and why I should prescribe it, I don't take his word for it.  I look at the data present that shows the medication works.  I usually ask for the number needed to treat.

If there is no data that shows the medication works, then I don't use it.

There is no data that shows tanking works.  I'm not going to support it.

[Jungle Jack]

I genuinely both sympathize and agree with KB on the whole.  Problem is we are already well down the road of tanking.  Schlenk's reputation as a GM will primarily be made by whom he drafts.  So far, Collins has been fantastic.  While I very much wanted Sexson (to the point of starting my only thread here on draft day), I do think our rooks can be quite good.  I do seriously wonder what happened in respect to Doncic and whether or not the choice to trade him and get Trae was passed down from up high (Ressler).  Regardless, it has been stunning just how much national attention Trae has engendered.

 

Hard not to think our current strategy of team construction is going to be addressed come the next CBA.  Just not sure what the answer is considering the advantages of the large market franchises.  Perhaps a start would be to withhold revenue sharing for the teams that blatantly tank.

[terrell]

2 hours ago, hazer said:

With new lottery odds going into effect, Hawks won’t be trying as hard to lose as last year. With better depth and talent on the roster, they’ll win more games. 28 to be precise. Hawks land 8th in the lottery, Mavs 10th, Cavs 13th. Hawks will have 3 lottery picks in ‘19 and a shitton of cap space to sign 2 max players. They will return to playoffs in 3rd year of the retool in ‘19-‘20 in a weak East.

Ill take it.....

[sturt]

1) I understood your claim is tanking WILL NOT work based on historical results of a sample of teams perceived to meet the selection criteria...

 

But your analogy presents a different assertion, ie that we CAN'T KNOW if it will work...

 

And that's all I'm really saying... and that there is fairly extensive evidence that to win a championship, one SOMEHOW must acquire multiple elite talents which are highly inaccessible to franchises who either are not in destination cities of that lack very high draft slots... Which at least validates it as a reasonable strategy.

 

2) The analogy is especially problematic because MORE THAN ONE patient can enjoy a successful result on any given day... Only one NBA team though can have ultimate success in any given year of course.