Bey has a torn ACL, Damn man!

[KB21]

2 hours ago, Final_quest said:

Agreed.  I think we're in one exception to your rule, though.  We have a rare opportunity to soft tank, but just the last 20-25 games.  Huge difference in chance at getting a top 4 pick if we finish as the 7th worst team vs 10th. 

We barely have a functional roster anyways.  If they do try to win it may be the same result as if we were tanking at this point.  

Here's the thing.  As a coach, you can't use the mantra of developing good habits and playing with the right mindset to your players if you are making decisions that will greatly increase your chances of losing.  The decision to limit Murray's minutes would be a decision that greatly increases the chances of losing.  You can't built a culture of good habits and a winning mindset that way.  By consistently focusing on habits, mindset, and getting better each day, you can do that even if the results are clearly affected by who is out.  So, while there may not be a drastic difference in results, there is clearly a difference in the process.  

[kg01]

2 hours ago, Final_quest said:

Agreed.  I think we're in one exception to your rule, though.  We have a rare opportunity to soft tank, but just the last 20-25 games.  Huge difference in chance at getting a top 4 pick if we finish as the 7th worst team vs 10th. 

We barely have a functional roster anyways.  If they do try to win it may be the same result as if we were tanking at this point.  

I truly don't think any pick outside maybe the top 2 carries much more value, among teams, as any other 1st.  They do on paper.  In practice, I don't think so.

I seriously doubt any decision maker would jump to trade for a pick to get a guy when they logically have another player, rated similarly, who'll be there when they pick.  I think it's fools gold to tank to go from 10 to 7, or 7 to 4 or whatever.

Not calling anyone a 'fool', just using the expression. 

[bird_dirt]

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

I think it comes down to potential.  Do you think he's going to be better than a 10 Million dollar player when he comes back?  This is the way I look at it.   What do you expect when he does play?  I mean, if you like we can just give a 2 year 20 million dollar deal...  No PO.   No TO.  I think we have Bird rights still.   However, I think that he's going to fair better than a 10 million dollar player after he rehabs so.. we make off with a good haul after the rehab.   If I told you that you can get a 6'8 player with a motor who can shoot a streaky 38% from three. and can get you maybe 15/7.... in 24 mpg.. what is it worth to you?  Those are my low expectations.   I expect more than that from Bey though. 

 

 

If you pay him 3/30, IMO he has to better than a 15 million dollar player since you’re paying 30 for basically two years of service. 
Sadly, I’m not certain I’d want to pay him that before the injury. I’m even less comfortable making that bet post injury. 

[AHF]

30 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Here's the thing.  As a coach, you can't use the mantra of developing good habits and playing with the right mindset to your players if you are making decisions that will greatly increase your chances of losing.  The decision to limit Murray's minutes would be a decision that greatly increases the chances of losing.  You can't built a culture of good habits and a winning mindset that way.  By consistently focusing on habits, mindset, and getting better each day, you can do that even if the results are clearly affected by who is out.  So, while there may not be a drastic difference in results, there is clearly a difference in the process.  

I would say increasing his minutes to 41 a game or something would be crazy.  (He played 41 last game in an effort to win.)  You can't put your best players (and most tradeable players) in harm's way to try to win more games in a lost season.  So keep his minutes closer to the 35 he has played this season and don't hesitate to reduce from there if he is hurt.  The worst thing we could have going forward is a major injury to another core player that puts us behind the eight ball for next season.

I don't think tanking and what you are saying (focus on the right habits, etc.) are in conflict right now given how wiped out our roster is.  But I sure don't want to see Hunter and DJM pushing their bodies to try to carry us into the play-in.  Hunter getting hurt again or DJM getting hurt due to playing too many minutes or putting Hunter up against opposing PFs who muscle him while he is still recovering, etc. would be a real disaster and  huge mistake from the coach and GM.

[bleachkit]

I personally think we should continue to try to win, as a matter of professional and culture. If we can get JJ and OO back we could be a solid squad. 

[Final_quest]

1 hour ago, kg01 said:

I truly don't think any pick outside maybe the top 2 carries much more value, among teams, as any other 1st.  They do on paper.  In practice, I don't think so.

I seriously doubt any decision maker would jump to trade for a pick to get a guy when they logically have another player, rated similarly, who'll be there when they pick.  I think it's fools gold to tank to go from 10 to 7, or 7 to 4 or whatever.

Not calling anyone a 'fool', just using the expression. 

I literally have only heard a couple names in this draft and have watched zero seconds of college ball this year.  The draft is more about specific players in the NBA than any other sport.  Once you miss out on Trae Young at pick #5 there's no comparable player further down the board.  

Since our forum discussed tanking for 2 years straight, I think there's enough content to last at least another decade on this topic.  We don't want to unleash the beast again.  So I'll just say maybe some drafts GMs are indifferent to draft position, but that has got to be an edge case.  I will assume this is not a draft where position #4 and #10 = roughly the same thing because that hardly ever happens.  It's true that you can find good players after the top half of the lottery, but sometimes a pair of two's is the best hand in a poker game.  

[Final_quest]

57 minutes ago, AHF said:

I don't think tanking and what you are saying (focus on the right habits, etc.) are in conflict right now given how wiped out our roster is.  

Summer league is an example of a time when working on your game is more important than winning.  Winning habits can be a focus while winning the game is not the focus. 

Dang, I can feel the flurry of posts coming, and I should know better.

[AHF]

51 minutes ago, Final_quest said:

Summer league is an example of a time when working on your game is more important than winning.  Winning habits can be a focus while winning the game is not the focus. 

Dang, I can feel the flurry of posts coming, and I should know better.

That would be my approach.  Work on specific things and with specific groupings, etc. over and above simple W/L results.  When Kobe, AJ, Mo, etc. become available give them minutes and instruction from the staff.  Do not overplay guys or ask them to do unnatural things on the floor that could put them at heightened risk.  The end goal is setting ourselves up to be as competitive as possible next season.

[KB21]

They can get instruction during side sessions on off days.  It makes no sense to put someone out there in an NBA game when you know that player is going to be completely overmatched and overwhelmed just because you think you need to get them experience now.  

[JayBirdHawk]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

They can get instruction during side sessions on off days.  It makes no sense to put someone out there in an NBA game when you know that player is going to be completely overmatched and overwhelmed just because you think you need to get them experience now.  

Teams can barely get real practices in during the season unless they have 2 off days, which is very rare.  Sometimes experience is the best teacher.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

3 hours ago, bleachkit said:

I personally think we should continue to try to win, as a matter of professional and culture. If we can get JJ and OO back we could be a solid squad. 

Try to continue to win?  Yes

Play people ridiculous minutes to achieve that?  No.

 

The last person I remember doing that, was Woody back in 2008, when he cut his rotation down to 7 players, to try to make the playoffs.

It made sense for that team, because they were young and never been to the playoffs as a group.

For this team, when you're down 75% of your main rotation players, not so much.

[JayBirdHawk]

1 hour ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Try to continue to win?  Yes

Play people ridiculous minutes to achieve that?  No.

[Diesel]

8 hours ago, bird_dirt said:

If you pay him 3/30, IMO he has to better than a 15 million dollar player since you’re paying 30 for basically two years of service. 
Sadly, I’m not certain I’d want to pay him that before the injury. I’m even less comfortable making that bet post injury. 

I hear you, that's why I am willing to go 2/20 or even 2/18.   Point is... if he comes back and he is good, we don't lose him for nothing. 

 

[Diesel]

5 hours ago, KB21 said:

They can get instruction during side sessions on off days.  It makes no sense to put someone out there in an NBA game when you know that player is going to be completely overmatched and overwhelmed just because you think you need to get them experience now.  

I'm jumping in all willey nealy.. but.. You have to taste a good brisket so that you can learn how to make one.    They can only learn so much on the sidelines and in the G-League.   They need to experience the speed of the game so that they can have goals.   They need to learn how real NBA player defend so that they can take it back to the Lab.   Look at what GS has done with their young guys.  IN our situation, you have the ability to pull them out when they are totally overwhelmed and teach from there. 

 

[AHF]

18 hours ago, KB21 said:

They can get instruction during side sessions on off days.  It makes no sense to put someone out there in an NBA game when you know that player is going to be completely overmatched and overwhelmed just because you think you need to get them experience now.  

Who on this team are you talking about?

Obviously guys like Hunter, JJ, OO, etc. have plenty they could work for development during games and are proven NBA players.

We've seen AJ in NBA games looking very good.

We've seen Kobe in NBA games looking very good.

Quin thought Lundy was ready enough to get minutes in 9 games while we were trying to contend so he doesn't seem to think Lundry is completely overmatched.  

So are we just talking about Mo?  I'm fine with him spending all season in College Park.  I expected that from before the season started.  Not so much for Kobe Bufkin.

[KB21]

I'm talking about rookies in general.  They shouldn't play until they are ready, and the teams who are giving big minutes to rookies and/or making them a big part of their scheme are losing more than winning.  

[TheNorthCydeRises]

31 minutes ago, KB21 said:

I'm talking about rookies in general.  They shouldn't play until they are ready, and the teams who are giving big minutes to rookies and/or making them a big part of their scheme are losing more than winning.  

Yes and no.

Of the rookies that have played 1000 minutes so far this year, 8 of them play for teams currently over .500 and will at least make the play-in.

 

Our rookies?

• Bufkin - 89 minutes in 9 games
• Lundy - 52 minutes in 9 games

 

[AHF]

51 minutes ago, KB21 said:

I'm talking about rookies in general.  They shouldn't play until they are ready, and the teams who are giving big minutes to rookies and/or making them a big part of their scheme are losing more than winning.  

That makes perfect sense since most highly drafted rookies are joining teams that were among the worst in the entire league without them.  Asking a rookie to take such a team from say 28 wins to 43+ wins is asking a whole lot.  If such a team added a rookie and jumped from 28 wins to 38 wins that team would still be losing more than winning even if the rookie was primarily responsible for the improvement.

18 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Yes and no.

Of the rookies that have played 1000 minutes so far this year, 8 of them play for teams currently over .500 and will at least make the play-in.

 

Our rookies?

• Bufkin - 89 minutes in 9 games
• Lundy - 52 minutes in 9 games

 

For this year's data, that is a good point but I suspect that it is not supported over longer periods of time just because the best rookies tend to join losing teams.

Even some of the greatest players in the history of the game were on teams that didn't win more than they lost:

Jokic

Giannis

LeBron

Curry

Durant

MJ

Oscar

etc etc

All these guys played big minutes as rookies, all of them eventually won championships, and all of them along with many others were on losing teams.  But all these players and these teams benefited from them playing those minutes.

Whether a team wins more games than it loses while playing a rookie to me is not a good way of evaluating whether someone should be getting playing time since the wins and losses are based more on the total team composition than on the performance or readiness of the individual rookie.  When Duncan joins Robinson, they win during Duncan's rookie year.  When Kobe joins Shaq, they win.  When Magic joins Kareem, they win.  When LeBron joins Ricky Davis, they lose more than they win.  None of this is remotely surprising or informative.

[JayBirdHawk]

Surgery tomorrow in NY.

[JayBirdHawk]