Nothing like starting the New Year off by rehashing some of the hotest topics over the past year. Yawn.
0
Feeling Nos_sturt_damus-like
Started by
sturt
, Dec 31 2007 11:22 AM
138 replies to this topic
#31
-
- Political Squawkers
-
- Join Date: 25-September 05
- Post Count: 11,738
Assistant Coach
- Gender:Male
- Location: Georgia
Posted 01 January 2008 - 11:35 AM
#32
-
- Squawk Supporter
-
- Join Date: 08-June 02
- Post Count: 2,457
Hawksquawk Founder
- Gender:Male
- Location: Beaumont, TX
- Fan since:1971
Posted 01 January 2008 - 12:00 PM
Quote:
In other words not one time.
Wrong again.
Only you, my dogged, final-word-hungry friend, could look at those results and conclude "not one time."
Laughable.
The math is what it is. Odds are that if you move backwards x-number of times, you should see some balance to that emerge at some point. And, needless to say (?), that's what just happened in 2007.
And it is just as laughable to make light of the significance of one draft slot, particularly when it is so high in the draft.
It's not that your intelligence about basketball is screwed up... it's that your desire to win an argument is screwed up... putting you out on these indefensible planks where you just make stuff up and see what sticks.
Quote:
...Lastly, and most importantly, the Hawks kept the pick for another year WHICH WAS THEN USED IN THE JJ TRADE TO BRING IN OUR BEST PLAYER. DO YOU REALLY THINK IT IS UNLUCKY THAT WE HAD THAT PICK AVAILABLE?
Duh
How easy to forget YOUR original question when it suits YOUR purposes.
As I recall, it concerned "luck" and drafting. Certainly, we retained the asset and were able to make a decision on how to use that asset later on. But that's NOT what YOU asked.
"Duh" back at ya.
Quote:
My opinion is that BK's position was B, that Marvin would eventually be the best player several years down the road. Since the rebuilding process was in the early stages it made more sense to go with the guy with the highest upside rather than drafting for need.
So what say you, is it A or B?
I'm not sure what the mystery is here, but indeed, B is correct.
By BPA, particularly in a rebuilding situation and/or when drafting underclassmen like Marvin, it should not be taken to mean "best RIGHT-NOW player available."
Quote:
You talk about BK's plan to build a "long, athletic team" but when BK reaches in the draft to take a player which is the exact antithesis of his vision (not long but very short and unathletic) you still applaud it like an obedient lap dog.
Ahhh... your favorite technique... flip-flop things around on the surface in hopes that you can make enough ripples so that no one can see the shalllowness of the point. And add a nice little zinger on the end to attempt, again, connote the other person's myopia.
The deeper truth is not that deep... heck, my wife could probably tell you that BK's goal of a "long, athletic" team was mission-accomplished at this point. BK had drafted Chill, Smoove, and Marvelous, and SNT'd for Johnson, and the pre-draft media jokes about him targeting another clone of those weren't funny.
(Can I hear another "Duh"....???)
...which fits with the proposition that Shell marked a turning point from drafting BPAs to drafting for specific roles... it makes sense that the "long athletic" BPAs were the core of BK's plan, and then there comes a point where any GM, "real" or "fantasy," is going to have to fill-in with other body types to fill certain roles.
And, though it's really beside the point, while Shell's lenghth isn't debateable, his atheticism is.
#33
-
- Squawk Supporter
-
- Join Date: 08-June 02
- Post Count: 2,457
Hawksquawk Founder
- Gender:Male
- Location: Beaumont, TX
- Fan since:1971
Posted 01 January 2008 - 12:10 PM
Quote:
Add in the fact that BK the genius didn't even work out Roy, nor even consider him, and its just a ludicrous situation.
Honest question, just looking for an honest answer, TPete... and from you, I know I can expect that...
Rewind and imagine that BK drafts Roy.
In light of his position on the depth chart, then, how many minutes per game do you think he gets?
Then, while it's a given that SWill didn't set the world on fire, who gets his minutes instead?
Neither of those are trap questions, but just looking to satisfy my curiosity about your perspective.
#34
-
- Squawkers
-
- Join Date: 06-November 05
- Post Count: 17,412
General Manager
- Gender:Male
Posted 01 January 2008 - 12:14 PM
Quote:
The math is what it is. Odds are that if you move backwards x-number of times, you should see some balance to that emerge at some point. And, needless to say (?), that's what just happened in 2007.
Balance? The fact is that there wasn't one time where BK got unlucky based on what the pre lottery probabilities were. One spot forward does not equal one spot backwards. it doesn't work like that.
If the Hawks hadn't won the lottery this past offseason that pick would have been postponed until next year which apparently doesnt fit into your luck equation.
Quote:
How easy to forget YOUR original question when it suits YOUR purposes.
As I recall, it concerned "luck" and drafting. Certainly, we retained the asset and were able to make a decision on how to use that asset later on. But that's NOT what YOU asked.
"Duh" back at ya.
So you want to focus solely on draft and ignore the trade that brought in our best player? Fine
Yet again you fail to mention how it was unlucky that the Lakers missed the playoffs. They were bad and did the reasonable thing (tanking) to insure keeping their pick.
And lets say they did make the playoffs. Who was the great prize that BK missed out on?
*crickets*
Quote:
The deeper truth is not that deep... heck, my wife could probably tell you that BK's goal of a "long, athletic" team was mission-accomplished at this point.
I guess that explains why this "long, athletic team" is one of the shortest in the league at the 4-5 spots, where length is most important.
#35
-
- Squawkers
-
- Join Date: 06-November 05
- Post Count: 17,412
General Manager
- Gender:Male
Posted 01 January 2008 - 12:23 PM
Quote:
I'm not sure what the mystery is here, but indeed, B is correct.
By BPA, particularly in a rebuilding situation and/or when drafting underclassmen like Marvin, it should not be taken to mean "best RIGHT-NOW player available."
So the BPA agrument really means, in a rebuilding situation, the guy who is expected to be the best player several years down the road?
*scratches head*
Strange that you would say that considering you said the BPA argument was used to take childress in the FIRST year of rebuilding. Childress was slower, smaller, older and weaker than Iggy/Deng and shoots a highly unconventional shot so there is no way he could be considered as having a higher upside than Deng or iggy.
i guess the BPA means whatever you want it to mean at any given time. One year it can mean the best player at that time and the next year it can mean the best player in 5 years time. Let me try out this sturt logic about the BPA and see how it works.
2004 the Hawks were in their first year of rebuilding so it was natural for them to take the player deemed to have the highest upside since it would be awhile for the Hawks to be competitive. Therefore Deng is the obvious choice, possibly Iggy but certainly not Childress.
2005 Paul and Deron were much better players than Marvin at that time so (using sturts ameoba BPA argument) they should have been picked over Marvin.
This is fun. I should try this more often.
#36
-
- Squawk Supporter
-
- Join Date: 08-June 02
- Post Count: 2,457
Hawksquawk Founder
- Gender:Male
- Location: Beaumont, TX
- Fan since:1971
Posted 01 January 2008 - 12:44 PM
(Since you enjoy sound effects...)
*quiet but ominous sound of submerging ship as captain ex gurgles and suffocates under his ebb-and-tide dissent*
The math is what it is. Odds are that if you move backwards x-number of times, you should see some balance to that emerge at some point. And, needless to say (?), that's what just happened in 2007.
Balance? The fact is that there wasn't one time where BK got unlucky based on what the pre lottery probabilities were. One spot forward does not equal one spot backwards. it doesn't work like that.
Is it, or is it not "unlucky" to have to move down from the slot where, otherwise you would have drafted?
(Now, really, how hard is it to answer that question...???... unless you're splashing around, desperate for something to hold onto.)
If the Hawks hadn't won the lottery this past offseason that pick would have been postponed until next year which apparently doesnt fit into your luck equation.
First, I'm flattered that you think so highly of my impact on the universe, but the "law of averages" just isn't "my" equation.
The Hawks were due for some better draft luck... they got it, but to entertain your proposition, had they not, eventually the law of averages would have corrected that misfortune as well... albeit, unfortunately for BK, sometime after he'd been fired (LOL).
How easy to forget YOUR original question when it suits YOUR purposes.
As I recall, it concerned "luck" and drafting. Certainly, we retained the asset and were able to make a decision on how to use that asset later on. But that's NOT what YOU asked.
"Duh" back at ya.
So you want to focus solely on draft and ignore the trade that brought in our best player? Fine
Again, you attribute too much to me... this wasn't MY question, but YOURS:
When has BK ever gotten unlucky in the lottery?
(Pardon me for reading "lottery" as "draft position," but, correct me if I'm wrong, that seems to be no stretch of your question.)
And, to your credit, the question, while fairly elementary, was at least on-topic when you asked it... obviously, now at this point, you'd prefer to slant it differently.
But let me humor you for the sake of humoring my own imagination...
Had the JJ trade not happened, and had we have kept the asset, BK would have been looking at the #21 2006 pick, as opposed to that #18 2005 pick... more bad draft luck, at least in terms of position, but more-bad-luck-avoided thankfully.
And lets say they did make the playoffs. Who was the great prize that BK missed out on?
*crickets*
Reminder... again... I was answering... YOUR question... that BK turned it into something of significance after all is (a) not relevant to your question, and (b) a feather in his cap anyhow, but © again, not relevant to your question.
The deeper truth is not that deep... heck, my wife could probably tell you that BK's goal of a "long, athletic" team was mission-accomplished at this point.
I guess that explains why this "long, athletic team" is one of the shortest in the league at the 4-5 spots, where length is most important.
*more ripples in the shallow pond*
/forums/images/graemlins/nol2.gif
*quiet but ominous sound of submerging ship as captain ex gurgles and suffocates under his ebb-and-tide dissent*
Quote:
Quote:
The math is what it is. Odds are that if you move backwards x-number of times, you should see some balance to that emerge at some point. And, needless to say (?), that's what just happened in 2007.
Balance? The fact is that there wasn't one time where BK got unlucky based on what the pre lottery probabilities were. One spot forward does not equal one spot backwards. it doesn't work like that.
Is it, or is it not "unlucky" to have to move down from the slot where, otherwise you would have drafted?
(Now, really, how hard is it to answer that question...???... unless you're splashing around, desperate for something to hold onto.)
Quote:
If the Hawks hadn't won the lottery this past offseason that pick would have been postponed until next year which apparently doesnt fit into your luck equation.
First, I'm flattered that you think so highly of my impact on the universe, but the "law of averages" just isn't "my" equation.
The Hawks were due for some better draft luck... they got it, but to entertain your proposition, had they not, eventually the law of averages would have corrected that misfortune as well... albeit, unfortunately for BK, sometime after he'd been fired (LOL).
Quote:
Quote:
How easy to forget YOUR original question when it suits YOUR purposes.
As I recall, it concerned "luck" and drafting. Certainly, we retained the asset and were able to make a decision on how to use that asset later on. But that's NOT what YOU asked.
"Duh" back at ya.
So you want to focus solely on draft and ignore the trade that brought in our best player? Fine
Again, you attribute too much to me... this wasn't MY question, but YOURS:
Quote:
When has BK ever gotten unlucky in the lottery?
(Pardon me for reading "lottery" as "draft position," but, correct me if I'm wrong, that seems to be no stretch of your question.)
And, to your credit, the question, while fairly elementary, was at least on-topic when you asked it... obviously, now at this point, you'd prefer to slant it differently.
But let me humor you for the sake of humoring my own imagination...
Had the JJ trade not happened, and had we have kept the asset, BK would have been looking at the #21 2006 pick, as opposed to that #18 2005 pick... more bad draft luck, at least in terms of position, but more-bad-luck-avoided thankfully.
Quote:
And lets say they did make the playoffs. Who was the great prize that BK missed out on?
*crickets*
Reminder... again... I was answering... YOUR question... that BK turned it into something of significance after all is (a) not relevant to your question, and (b) a feather in his cap anyhow, but © again, not relevant to your question.
Quote:
Quote:
The deeper truth is not that deep... heck, my wife could probably tell you that BK's goal of a "long, athletic" team was mission-accomplished at this point.
I guess that explains why this "long, athletic team" is one of the shortest in the league at the 4-5 spots, where length is most important.
*more ripples in the shallow pond*
/forums/images/graemlins/nol2.gif
#37
-
- Squawkers
-
- Join Date: 06-November 05
- Post Count: 17,412
General Manager
- Gender:Male
Posted 01 January 2008 - 12:55 PM
Quote:
*more ripples in the shallow pond*
LOL that says it all right there. BK's plan was to build a "long, athletic team" yet they one of the shortest teams in the league at the 4/5 spots.
Mission accomplished? Hardly
Quote:
Is it, or is it not "unlucky" to have to move down from the slot where, otherwise you would have drafted?
Absolutely not.
The only question is where you drafted relative to where you were most likely to draft given the pre-lottery possibilities.
Quote:
Reminder... again... I was answering... YOUR question... that BK turned it into something of significance after all is (a) not relevant to your question, and (b) a feather in his cap anyhow, but © again, not relevant to your question.
Another dodge.
In order for BK to have gotten unlucky by not being able to use that LA pick in 2005 that would have to mean that he missed out on something of value in the 2005 draft.
What did he miss out on?
#38
-
- Squawk Supporter
-
- Join Date: 08-June 02
- Post Count: 2,457
Hawksquawk Founder
- Gender:Male
- Location: Beaumont, TX
- Fan since:1971
Posted 01 January 2008 - 01:14 PM
Dr. Re is right... and I didn't really want to re-hash EVERYTHING, but when ex latches onto something, I should've known, this was bound to occur.
Rewind.
My assertions were that BK had a plan, he
executed the plan, and the plan is paying dividends. #1 and #2 are clearly the case, and for the time being, #3 is as well.
ex, you are attempting to debate with me #1 and #2, and in that, you are looking for me to defend every detail of what BK did.
I'm not BK, obviously. I think I can see what led him to do what he did, and can see the logic in practically all of it, though not every individual decision was exactly the one that was best... in hindsight, at least.
Deng appears to have been the best choice. No one here, at least not me, is debating that.
But the factor that ex fails to acknowledge is that drafting wisely is often as much a challenge to not strikeout as it is to hit a home run.
I recall reading media draft-niks suggesting that Deng, but much more so, Iggy, having a wide range of potential both up and down. For the most part, Childress was considered to be neither high in potential nor particularly at-risk to bust.
Like it or not, BK apparently considered all three, and ultimately thought Childress represented the least risk of blowing up... and at an early stage in the rebuilding process, one can argue that it's more affordable to get an "okay" contributor than it is to seriously whiff.
I'm not sure what other theory makes any sense than that... BK isn't professionally masochistic.
Why wasn't the selection of Marvin, at the #2 pick, seen in the exact same light?
Best theory is that Marvin's worst-case-scenario was deemed fairly high by comparison... no surprise, given such a high slot... and, all things being equal and given a choice between whiffing on a 6-8 player and two point guards, heighth wins out.
Again, I'm not BK and I could be wrong, but putting all of the factors together, this drafting-from-a-conservative-paradigm seems most plausible of any of the theories I can see.
This is fun. I should try this more often.
LOL... yeah, I was just saying to myself earlier today, "ex just has 10,000 posts?... geez... slacker... doesn't Diesel have double that by now???"
/forums/images/graemlins/shrug.gif
Rewind.
My assertions were that BK had a plan, he
executed the plan, and the plan is paying dividends. #1 and #2 are clearly the case, and for the time being, #3 is as well.
ex, you are attempting to debate with me #1 and #2, and in that, you are looking for me to defend every detail of what BK did.
I'm not BK, obviously. I think I can see what led him to do what he did, and can see the logic in practically all of it, though not every individual decision was exactly the one that was best... in hindsight, at least.
Deng appears to have been the best choice. No one here, at least not me, is debating that.
But the factor that ex fails to acknowledge is that drafting wisely is often as much a challenge to not strikeout as it is to hit a home run.
I recall reading media draft-niks suggesting that Deng, but much more so, Iggy, having a wide range of potential both up and down. For the most part, Childress was considered to be neither high in potential nor particularly at-risk to bust.
Like it or not, BK apparently considered all three, and ultimately thought Childress represented the least risk of blowing up... and at an early stage in the rebuilding process, one can argue that it's more affordable to get an "okay" contributor than it is to seriously whiff.
I'm not sure what other theory makes any sense than that... BK isn't professionally masochistic.
Why wasn't the selection of Marvin, at the #2 pick, seen in the exact same light?
Best theory is that Marvin's worst-case-scenario was deemed fairly high by comparison... no surprise, given such a high slot... and, all things being equal and given a choice between whiffing on a 6-8 player and two point guards, heighth wins out.
Again, I'm not BK and I could be wrong, but putting all of the factors together, this drafting-from-a-conservative-paradigm seems most plausible of any of the theories I can see.
Quote:
This is fun. I should try this more often.
LOL... yeah, I was just saying to myself earlier today, "ex just has 10,000 posts?... geez... slacker... doesn't Diesel have double that by now???"
/forums/images/graemlins/shrug.gif
#39
-
- Squawk Supporter
-
- Join Date: 08-June 02
- Post Count: 2,457
Hawksquawk Founder
- Gender:Male
- Location: Beaumont, TX
- Fan since:1971
Posted 01 January 2008 - 01:26 PM
More hypocritical dodge accusations... more re-defining terms like "plan" or "unlucky in the draft" to suit own purposes...
and indeed...
More ripples in the shallow pond, of exodus' making.
/forums/images/graemlins/nol2.gif
BK *did* have a plan--to tear-down and re-build with long, athletic guys at the core.
BK *did* execute that plan.
And, we're watching now to see if the plan works or not... and will know with more certainty in about 3 months.
Points made, points defended.
While ex will, no doubt, feel abandoned now and will remark with some last words accordingly (probably several, in fact) .... there's no new ground being covered here, and the thought and effort expended, at least where I'm personally concerned, is almost completely non-productive at this point... better things to do, so see ya later...
/forums/images/graemlins/munching_out.gif
and indeed...
More ripples in the shallow pond, of exodus' making.
/forums/images/graemlins/nol2.gif
BK *did* have a plan--to tear-down and re-build with long, athletic guys at the core.
BK *did* execute that plan.
And, we're watching now to see if the plan works or not... and will know with more certainty in about 3 months.
Points made, points defended.
While ex will, no doubt, feel abandoned now and will remark with some last words accordingly (probably several, in fact) .... there's no new ground being covered here, and the thought and effort expended, at least where I'm personally concerned, is almost completely non-productive at this point... better things to do, so see ya later...
/forums/images/graemlins/munching_out.gif
#40
-
- Squawkers
-
- Join Date: 06-November 05
- Post Count: 17,412
General Manager
- Gender:Male
Posted 01 January 2008 - 01:29 PM
Quote:
But the factor that ex fails to acknowledge is that drafting wisely is often as much a challenge to not strikeout as it is to hit a home run.
Absolutely not. It isn't about hitting the home run.
Neither Deng nor Iggy were the best players available at 6 in the 2004 draft. In hindsight Jefferson and Kevin Martin are the top 2 players that BK could have picked.
However i haven't mentioned either player.
You have said time and again both the Childress and Marvin picks made sense using the BPA theory. That has been officially debunked.
You can use that argument for Marvin but not Childress. And even in the case of Marvin it is still weak given that we had harrington, Smith, childress, Diaw and Donta already on the roster and desperately needed a pg.
Now as to the lottery. let me give you an example to hopefully make things clear, again using 2005 as an example.
The Hawks had the worst record in the league. Does that mean they were unlucky to get the second pick? No
Their proablities for the top 2 picks were
1st 25%
2nd 21.48%
There was a 46.48% chance for them to get a top 2 pick. Therefore there was a 53.52% chance for them NOT to get a top 2 pick.
In your mind you probably believe the Hawks were unlucky to drop a spot. In reality that isn't the case.
Quote:
LOL... yeah, I was just saying to myself earlier today, "ex just has 10,000 posts?... geez... slacker... doesn't Diesel have double that by now???"
Ironically i have certainly made more posts defending Marvin, as a player, than anyone on this site. Marvin didn't pick himself at number 2 just like Shelden didn't pick himself at number 5.
I think Marvin was clearly the wrong pick but i still think he can be a very good player. I hated the Shelden pick but if it was up to me he would get all of Zaza's minutes.
I don't blame them for where they were picked.
#41
-
- Squawkers
-
- Join Date: 06-November 05
- Post Count: 17,412
General Manager
- Gender:Male
Posted 01 January 2008 - 01:32 PM
Quote:
More hypocritical dodge accusations... more re-defining terms like "plan" or "unlucky in the draft" to suit own purposes...
and indeed...
More ripples in the shallow pond, of exodus' making.
/forums/images/graemlins/nol2.gif
BK *did* have a plan--to tear-down and re-build with long, athletic guys at the core.
BK *did* execute that plan.
And, we're watching now to see if the plan works or not... and will know with more certainty in about 3 months.
Wrong. The Hawks are close to being a fairly complete team but they are still undersized up front. That isn't even debatable.
How can your goal of being long and athletic be accomplished if you are one of the shortest teams in the league at the 4/5 spots.
#42
-
- Squawkers
-
- Join Date: 23-June 06
- Post Count: 2,727
All-Star
Posted 01 January 2008 - 02:56 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Add in the fact that BK the genius didn't even work out Roy, nor even consider him, and its just a ludicrous situation.
Honest question, just looking for an honest answer, TPete... and from you, I know I can expect that...
Rewind and imagine that BK drafts Roy.
In light of his position on the depth chart, then, how many minutes per game do you think he gets?
Then, while it's a given that SWill didn't set the world on fire, who gets his minutes instead?
Neither of those are trap questions, but just looking to satisfy my curiosity about your perspective.
Shelden was both hurt and in the doghouse until garbage time last year so his "minutes" were mainly on the bench until late in the year.
Roy would have played at PG most of the year...the same way that Acie plays it now...except 10X better than Acie. Roy plays well with the ball in his hands both setting up others and scoring himself. The fact that we were too arrogant to even bring him in is absurd.
The only question that I cannot answer is would Roy have made us better to the point that we lost ping pong balls...and the 3rd pick. Obviously, we will never know.
But BK makes the wrong pick more than the weatherman. But, like the weatherman he keeps his job.
#43
-
- Squawk Supporter
-
- Join Date: 08-June 02
- Post Count: 2,457
Hawksquawk Founder
- Gender:Male
- Location: Beaumont, TX
- Fan since:1971
Posted 02 January 2008 - 03:29 PM
(Had an extra hour to fill at work, so I thought I'd drop back in to see how many "last words" my friend ex had actually put to the thread... and he never disappoints. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
I should let sleeping dogs lie, but then again, the angel(?) or devil(?) in me begs for some correction to the errors here, and I just feel obliged to answer the call...)
Neither Deng nor Iggy were the best players available at 6 in the 2004 draft.
I recognize that you consider yourself to have a profound memory where drafts are concerned, but mine isn't so great, so I had to resort to googling. What I found was that yours isn't so hot, either, my surface-fixated friend...
SI.com thought Iggy should go #3, and Deng #5.
So did NBA.com...
So did Scout.com...
Whadayaknow... so did ESPN.com...
I could have went on, but then I remembered that I told you that I'm not your research department.
(Lesson you shoulda learned long before now: Dig just a little before you make-up stuff... tends to keep you from looking foolish or lazy or both.)
In hindsight Jefferson and Kevin Martin are the top 2 players that BK could have picked.
However i haven't mentioned either player.
For good reason... I've yet to see where anyone was projecting them that high.
But, to be appropriately responsive to your comment, I think I get why you bring that up... let me speak to your use of the term "home run" later, though...
You have said time and again both the Childress and Marvin picks made sense using the BPA theory. That has been officially debunked.
Reminds me of a few months ago when the one association of scientists attempted to pronounce "officially debunked" the theory that global warming is unrelated to man-made causes.
When you have to pontificate that something is "officially debunked," is it really?
Isn't that more of a reflection of your own frustration that you can't get rid of arguments to the contrary, and of your own desire to, however feebly, manipulate conclusions by presumptuously dismissing those arguments?
Yeah.
Call us cynical, but practically no one is going to take your word for it, so why do it?
You can use that argument for Marvin but not Childress.
I think I've located a crux of the dispute here.
I've maintained that Chilz was the BPA... and given the other priorities I've illuminated, he was.
Those other priorities/filters were: (a) failing a Howard development, take a "long and athletic" player (... a term I'll need to elaborate upon below, but normally an agile 6'7"-6'10" guy who optimally could play multiple positions...), and (b) take a conservative-approach, thus if faced with multiple players of similary talent, select the one most likely to not bust.
Without those filters, the BPA was Iggy at that point in the draft; one can only wonder what the gossip may have been that made him the last of the three drafted when, in mock draft after mock draft, he was supposed to be the first. Perhaps there was a Warren Sapp episode that we'll never know about(?).
And even in the case of Marvin it is still weak given that we had harrington, Smith, childress, Diaw and Donta already on the roster and desperately needed a pg.
You totally lost me here... if Marvin was the concensus best or next-best player in the draft, then that's what he was, and if that's the predetermined approach to the draft selection, by definition you aren't going to draft a PG because that would be drafting for need.
Now as to the lottery. let me give you an example to hopefully make things clear, again using 2005 as an example.
The Hawks had the worst record in the league. Does that mean they were unlucky to get the second pick? No
Their proablities for the top 2 picks were
1st 25%
2nd 21.48%
There was a 46.48% chance for them to get a top 2 pick. Therefore there was a 53.52% chance for them NOT to get a top 2 pick.
In your mind you probably believe the Hawks were unlucky to drop a spot. In reality that isn't the case.
Wow...
Just... wow.
The convolutions one goes to in order to rescue a point. I'm almost afraid to dignify it with a response since it seems to only serve to further your shallow ripples.
Otoh, if I don't, you'll play your "officially debunked" proclamation game again, which is annoying enough that I'll probably need to indulge you sooner or later anyway...
Essentially, you're suggesting that if I had a 25% chance to win $1,000,000 in the lottery (and thus a 75% chance to not win that amount), and a 21% chance to win something less than that, I should consider myself "lucky" to have won second place since, at least, I made the top 2.
And... extending that idea, had I won third place, then I should consider myself "lucky" since, at least, I made the top 3.
And so on and so on and so on... until you eventually end up just feeling lucky for having won SOMETHING... even though, of all of those possibilities, originally #1 was the slot where I had the best odds.
Logic be damned.
Nahnahbanah.
The only way this strawman of yours gains any bones would be if not receiving a pick at all were an option.
Failing that, you have what you have: a grossly convoluted attempt to rescue a brain-dead argument.
(You may save a little face if you just admit it--you didn't think I'd go look all of that up and call your bluff. But it is "just a little" face-saving, because it's not as-if our bad luck where draft slotting is concerned isn't commonly understood... you really should have known better than to test that one.)
How can your goal of being long and athletic be accomplished if you are one of the shortest teams in the league at the 4/5 spots.
Your pattern by now is well-established. You seize upon a key term, redefine it to suit your contrarian approach, and then see if you can make a counter-argument that sticks.
First in this thread, there was "plan"...
having explained that one so that you couldn't reconfigure it, you took us to new definitions of "unlucky"...
then, you attempted to bait me into a debate on "best player available," which I guess I deflected by clarifying that my contention was "best player available, but not necessarily right out of the gate"...
then, as I was attempting to illustrate a drafted player who successfully fulfills his high ceiling in using the term "home run," you attempted to redefine home run to mean "best player that no one even considered at that draft slot" (eg, Martin or Jefferson in this case)...
The tradition continues... we now have "long and athletic."
I could be in the minority, but I consider Josh Smith to be "long and athletic," even though he most typically plays at the 4. I definitely consider Marvin Williams to be long and athletic. And I dare anyone to suggest that Joe Johnson isn't long and athletic.
Certainly, at least on this point, I can see where you're coming from--actual position on the floor plays some factor in what "long and athletic" would mean. Joe Johnson is long and athletic at the 1 or 2... but those wouldn't be the first adjectives we'd use to describe him if he had to play the 4 or 5. On the other hand, there aren't a lot of long and athletic centers, period. Seems you'd start with Dwight Howard, and the description drops off fairly prohibitively from there.
So, perhaps "long and athletic" is too limited to describe what I've asserted that BK was looking for in this theoretical master plan... and THAT, after all, is the starting point for the discussion, and the reason why "long and athletic" was ever uttered.
I'm open to other words or phrases that someone would/could suggest, but essentially what I've meant to assert all along (and I know I'm not alone on this) is that BK was looking for guys who would create mismatches at their positions on the floor because of their combination of heighth and their athleticism... thus, tall point guards and tall two-guards and tall small forwards are at a premium... and/but since human DNA just doesn't create infinitely taller and taller individuals, that heighth factor is going to naturally get compromised at the low post positions, and the premium lands on athleticism.
And, the point is not and was never that BK has accomplished the best roster (vis-a-vis, your reference to DET), but that he (a) had a plan (that two years ago was self-evident even to the Hawks detractors who liked to poke fun at the notion of an all 6-8 line-up in ATL), (b) he executed that plan, and © we're seeing the fruit--good or bad--of that plan right now.
Are there arguments to the contrary?
Obviously, you've attempted to put forward some here. I just don't think it's as valid to believe that BK made these decisions over the years without some guiding principles in his mind... it strains credulity to think he thought one way when he drafted Diaw, another way when he drafted Childress and Smoove, another way when he traded for Johnson, another way when he drafted MWilliams.
Virtually none of us who are educated would approach the job in a spontaneous, finger-to-the-wind way... why would someone as known-to-be-meticulous-and-calculating as BK???
No.
I maintain that the preponderance of the evidence appears to support the theory that the man was operating under some guiding principles/priorities, even if he couldn't be totally certain that those principles/priorities would bear fruit in his term of office as GM.
Game, set, match... unless you can find another term to convolute, which appears to be a particular talent of yours.
/forums/images/graemlins/munching_out.gif
I should let sleeping dogs lie, but then again, the angel(?) or devil(?) in me begs for some correction to the errors here, and I just feel obliged to answer the call...)
Quote:
Neither Deng nor Iggy were the best players available at 6 in the 2004 draft.
I recognize that you consider yourself to have a profound memory where drafts are concerned, but mine isn't so great, so I had to resort to googling. What I found was that yours isn't so hot, either, my surface-fixated friend...
SI.com thought Iggy should go #3, and Deng #5.
So did NBA.com...
So did Scout.com...
Whadayaknow... so did ESPN.com...
I could have went on, but then I remembered that I told you that I'm not your research department.
(Lesson you shoulda learned long before now: Dig just a little before you make-up stuff... tends to keep you from looking foolish or lazy or both.)
Quote:
In hindsight Jefferson and Kevin Martin are the top 2 players that BK could have picked.
However i haven't mentioned either player.
For good reason... I've yet to see where anyone was projecting them that high.
But, to be appropriately responsive to your comment, I think I get why you bring that up... let me speak to your use of the term "home run" later, though...
Quote:
You have said time and again both the Childress and Marvin picks made sense using the BPA theory. That has been officially debunked.
Reminds me of a few months ago when the one association of scientists attempted to pronounce "officially debunked" the theory that global warming is unrelated to man-made causes.
When you have to pontificate that something is "officially debunked," is it really?
Isn't that more of a reflection of your own frustration that you can't get rid of arguments to the contrary, and of your own desire to, however feebly, manipulate conclusions by presumptuously dismissing those arguments?
Yeah.
Call us cynical, but practically no one is going to take your word for it, so why do it?
Quote:
You can use that argument for Marvin but not Childress.
I think I've located a crux of the dispute here.
I've maintained that Chilz was the BPA... and given the other priorities I've illuminated, he was.
Those other priorities/filters were: (a) failing a Howard development, take a "long and athletic" player (... a term I'll need to elaborate upon below, but normally an agile 6'7"-6'10" guy who optimally could play multiple positions...), and (b) take a conservative-approach, thus if faced with multiple players of similary talent, select the one most likely to not bust.
Without those filters, the BPA was Iggy at that point in the draft; one can only wonder what the gossip may have been that made him the last of the three drafted when, in mock draft after mock draft, he was supposed to be the first. Perhaps there was a Warren Sapp episode that we'll never know about(?).
Quote:
And even in the case of Marvin it is still weak given that we had harrington, Smith, childress, Diaw and Donta already on the roster and desperately needed a pg.
You totally lost me here... if Marvin was the concensus best or next-best player in the draft, then that's what he was, and if that's the predetermined approach to the draft selection, by definition you aren't going to draft a PG because that would be drafting for need.
Quote:
Now as to the lottery. let me give you an example to hopefully make things clear, again using 2005 as an example.
The Hawks had the worst record in the league. Does that mean they were unlucky to get the second pick? No
Their proablities for the top 2 picks were
1st 25%
2nd 21.48%
There was a 46.48% chance for them to get a top 2 pick. Therefore there was a 53.52% chance for them NOT to get a top 2 pick.
In your mind you probably believe the Hawks were unlucky to drop a spot. In reality that isn't the case.
Wow...
Just... wow.
The convolutions one goes to in order to rescue a point. I'm almost afraid to dignify it with a response since it seems to only serve to further your shallow ripples.
Otoh, if I don't, you'll play your "officially debunked" proclamation game again, which is annoying enough that I'll probably need to indulge you sooner or later anyway...
Essentially, you're suggesting that if I had a 25% chance to win $1,000,000 in the lottery (and thus a 75% chance to not win that amount), and a 21% chance to win something less than that, I should consider myself "lucky" to have won second place since, at least, I made the top 2.
And... extending that idea, had I won third place, then I should consider myself "lucky" since, at least, I made the top 3.
And so on and so on and so on... until you eventually end up just feeling lucky for having won SOMETHING... even though, of all of those possibilities, originally #1 was the slot where I had the best odds.
Logic be damned.
Nahnahbanah.
The only way this strawman of yours gains any bones would be if not receiving a pick at all were an option.
Failing that, you have what you have: a grossly convoluted attempt to rescue a brain-dead argument.
(You may save a little face if you just admit it--you didn't think I'd go look all of that up and call your bluff. But it is "just a little" face-saving, because it's not as-if our bad luck where draft slotting is concerned isn't commonly understood... you really should have known better than to test that one.)
Quote:
How can your goal of being long and athletic be accomplished if you are one of the shortest teams in the league at the 4/5 spots.
Your pattern by now is well-established. You seize upon a key term, redefine it to suit your contrarian approach, and then see if you can make a counter-argument that sticks.
First in this thread, there was "plan"...
having explained that one so that you couldn't reconfigure it, you took us to new definitions of "unlucky"...
then, you attempted to bait me into a debate on "best player available," which I guess I deflected by clarifying that my contention was "best player available, but not necessarily right out of the gate"...
then, as I was attempting to illustrate a drafted player who successfully fulfills his high ceiling in using the term "home run," you attempted to redefine home run to mean "best player that no one even considered at that draft slot" (eg, Martin or Jefferson in this case)...
The tradition continues... we now have "long and athletic."
I could be in the minority, but I consider Josh Smith to be "long and athletic," even though he most typically plays at the 4. I definitely consider Marvin Williams to be long and athletic. And I dare anyone to suggest that Joe Johnson isn't long and athletic.
Certainly, at least on this point, I can see where you're coming from--actual position on the floor plays some factor in what "long and athletic" would mean. Joe Johnson is long and athletic at the 1 or 2... but those wouldn't be the first adjectives we'd use to describe him if he had to play the 4 or 5. On the other hand, there aren't a lot of long and athletic centers, period. Seems you'd start with Dwight Howard, and the description drops off fairly prohibitively from there.
So, perhaps "long and athletic" is too limited to describe what I've asserted that BK was looking for in this theoretical master plan... and THAT, after all, is the starting point for the discussion, and the reason why "long and athletic" was ever uttered.
I'm open to other words or phrases that someone would/could suggest, but essentially what I've meant to assert all along (and I know I'm not alone on this) is that BK was looking for guys who would create mismatches at their positions on the floor because of their combination of heighth and their athleticism... thus, tall point guards and tall two-guards and tall small forwards are at a premium... and/but since human DNA just doesn't create infinitely taller and taller individuals, that heighth factor is going to naturally get compromised at the low post positions, and the premium lands on athleticism.
And, the point is not and was never that BK has accomplished the best roster (vis-a-vis, your reference to DET), but that he (a) had a plan (that two years ago was self-evident even to the Hawks detractors who liked to poke fun at the notion of an all 6-8 line-up in ATL), (b) he executed that plan, and © we're seeing the fruit--good or bad--of that plan right now.
Are there arguments to the contrary?
Obviously, you've attempted to put forward some here. I just don't think it's as valid to believe that BK made these decisions over the years without some guiding principles in his mind... it strains credulity to think he thought one way when he drafted Diaw, another way when he drafted Childress and Smoove, another way when he traded for Johnson, another way when he drafted MWilliams.
Virtually none of us who are educated would approach the job in a spontaneous, finger-to-the-wind way... why would someone as known-to-be-meticulous-and-calculating as BK???
No.
I maintain that the preponderance of the evidence appears to support the theory that the man was operating under some guiding principles/priorities, even if he couldn't be totally certain that those principles/priorities would bear fruit in his term of office as GM.
Game, set, match... unless you can find another term to convolute, which appears to be a particular talent of yours.
/forums/images/graemlins/munching_out.gif
#44
-
- Squawkers
-
- Join Date: 06-November 05
- Post Count: 17,412
General Manager
- Gender:Male
Posted 02 January 2008 - 03:46 PM
Quote:
even though, of all of those possibilities, originally #1 was the slot where I had the best odds.
Given my restraints due to my bet with Diesel i cannot respond fully to your post.
However i feel safe in responding to a simple error.
The team with the worst record has a 25% chance to land the top pick and over a 30% chance to land the 4th pick (which is exactly what happened the last two years).
#45
-
- Squawkers
-
- Join Date: 06-November 05
- Post Count: 17,412
General Manager
- Gender:Male
Posted 02 January 2008 - 03:52 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
