Would the franchise be better served if Schlenk just goes ahead and hires his own guy to coach?

[davis171]

5 minutes ago, KB21 said:

No.  That's what his weak mind has been convinced to do.  This is the same owner who said that there was NFW that they were trading Paul Millsap, and then doubled up on it at the end of the season stating that resigning him was a priority.

Dude Grant Hill is a partial owner and on the board I doubt just Schlenk brought the idea. Every owner/GM talks up players like that especially when management is changing. I also believe you don’t build a net worth where Ressler is being weak minded.

Edited April 15, 2018 by davis171

[KB21]

Another thing I wonder is if Travis lied to Tony about how long this will take much like he lied to the fans by saying that he didn't want to be "down for long".  

[sturt]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

So, you are saying that we should ignore history and just hope for the best.

I said what I said, nothing more nothing less.  Ignore history and just hope for the best? Don't think that's there. 

But what I did say is...

5 hours ago, sturt said:

you can make your case, but this is a subjective judgment one makes based on the evidence one chooses to consider more salient or less salient. 

... and I don't know why that much appears to be so hard for you to acknowledge. 

[KB21]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

I said what I said, nothing more nothing less.  Ignore history and just hope for the best? Don't think that's there. 

But what I did say is...

... and I don't know why that much appears to be so hard for you to acknowledge. 

Because it is not based on subjectivity.  

[sturt]

8 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Because it is not based on subjectivity.  

You're smarter than this. C'mon. Maybe the reason you're being so demanding about it is that you associate "subjective" with "wrong" (?). But a jury may render a guilty verdict in a murder trial that seems "beyond a shadow of a doubt," and yet, that verdict by definition is still subjective. 

[KB21]

Just now, sturt said:

You're smarter than this. C'mon. Maybe the reason you're being so demanding about it is that you associate "subjective" with "wrong" (?). But a jury may render a guilty verdict in a murder trial that seems "beyond a shadow of a doubt," and yet, that verdict by definition is still subjective. 

What part of saying teams that win fewer than 25 games are rarely back in the playoffs within 5 years of that sub 25 win season is subjective?

The only subjective part is the viewpoint those who are against my view on this take.  It is very subjective to emphatically state that the team from last year would not have gotten better had it been kept together.  

If my point of view is subjective, then give me multiple examples of teams where the best player based on BPM or VORP on the team is a rookie AND that team is a playoff team.

[AHF]

6 hours ago, Vol4ever said:

Hawks are just like the Braves, they are NOT going to spend money.  They didnt want a top 3 to have to pay the $$$.   One day all of this will come out.  This is a completely failed franchise since Ted Turner left,  once again just like the Braves.  Ownership could care less about winning.  Ressler will sale the team.  

They will spent more than 10M on Crawford to get a late pick but won't spend 2M on the additional salary for the #1 pick?  What are you talking about?  No basis or logic behind this.

They would make way more money trading down with the #1.  

[sturt]

24 minutes ago, KB21 said:

What part of saying teams that win fewer than 25 games are rarely back in the playoffs within 5 years of that sub 25 win season is subjective?

 

Nothing. That is, indeed, an objective statement.

But while I'm sure you've said that before, it's not something that I ever remember reading personally... certainly not in this particular exchange.

And even if you had said that, it remains a subjective judgment to determine whether that is, on its own, predictive of the situation this team is experiencing and will experience.

 

What I do remember you saying, and the reason I understood we were talking about subjectivity is that you were making grandiose statements like... "The probability that this works out is so low that there is no use pretending that it will actually work out"... as-if we could actually calculate probability, given the litany of historical and current conditions that would have to be taken into account to make that calculation valid.

 

 

[KB21]

7 minutes ago, sturt said:

Nothing. That is, indeed, an objective statement.

But while I'm sure you've said that before, it's not something that I ever remember reading personally.

And even if you had said that, it remains a subjective judgment to determine whether that is, on its own, predictive of the situation this team is experiencing and will experience.

 

What I do remember you saying, and the reason I understood we were talking about subjectivity is that you were making grandiose statements like... "The probability that this works out is so low that there is no use pretending that it will actually work out"... as-if we could actually calculate probability, given the litany of historical and current conditions that would have to be taken into account to make that calculation valid.

 

 

There is nothing subjective about my view on this.

[AHF]

Most champions won 20 some games when they were getting their core piece or pieces. 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

There is nothing subjective about my view on this.

Absurd. My friend, you're operating from a dictionary different from the rest of us. Not my fault... they didn't ask me to write it. It just is. That you would describe the conclusion made as "your view" is, in itself, acknowledgement.

[marco102]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Absurd. My friend, you're operating from a dictionary different from the rest of us. Not my fault... they didn't ask me to write it. It just is. That you would describe the conclusion made as "your view" is, in itself, acknowledgement.

Why do y'all keep feeding it!?!

Edited April 15, 2018 by marco102

[KB21]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Absurd. My friend, you're operating from a dictionary different from the rest of us. Not my fault... they didn't ask me to write it. It just is. That you would describe the conclusion made as "your view" is, in itself, acknowledgement.

There is no way what I have said on this subject is subjective, because I have presented the supporting data many times.  That data has been summarily ignored.

So again, my request is to find me multiple instances where a playoff team's best player is a rookie.  If what I have said is subjective, then there should be multiple instances where getting a high draft pick who went on to be the best player on that team as a rookie and lead that team to the playoffs.

[sturt]

16 minutes ago, marco102 said:

Why do y'all keep feeding it!?!

On this one small point, we ought to be able to agree. KB is not stupid. 

[sturt]

Just now, KB21 said:

There is no way what I have said on this subject is subjective, because I have presented the supporting data many times.  That data has been summarily ignored.

So again, my request is to find me multiple instances where a playoff team's best player is a rookie.  If what I have said is subjective, then there should be multiple instances where getting a high draft pick who went on to be the best player on that team as a rookie and lead that team to the playoffs.

*sigh*

Subjective does not mean there's no data to support your conclusion/prediction. 

I'm done. Did my best.

[KB21]

11 minutes ago, sturt said:

*sigh*

Subjective does not mean there's no data to support your conclusion/prediction. 

I'm done. Did my best.

Subjective absolutely means that.  That's why there is a difference between subjective and objective.  Something that is subjective is based upon personal feelings, and I will admit that my personal feelings about tanking is that I despise the notion of intentionally losing at anything.  That is definitely subjective.

My view that tanking is a foolish strategy that only prolongs misery is based upon objective data.  Subjectively, I wouldn't be a proponent of tanking even if it guaranteed that you win a championship.  

[AHF]

Data like a study with a false conclusion that argued that middle tier teams had a better chance at a ring than low win teams and was published when GS and CLE were the 13th seeds in their conference and went on to win 3 consecutive championships.  They trolled themselves by overreaching.  What they presented had nothing to do with championships.  Instead, it showed that in the aggregate teams with high loss counts tend to have higher loss counts a few years later than teams with higher win counts.  There is valid data in that study used to promote invalid and unsupported conclusions.

[Vol4ever]

6 hours ago, AHF said:

They will spent more than 10M on Crawford to get a late pick but won't spend 2M on the additional salary for the #1 pick?  What are you talking about?  No basis or logic behind this.

They would make way more money trading down with the #1.  

They have to spend a minimum amount no matter what.  I stand behind my statement.  

[KB21]

33 minutes ago, AHF said:

Data like a study with a false conclusion that argued that middle tier teams had a better chance at a ring than low win teams and was published when GS and CLE were the 13th seeds in their conference and went on to win 3 consecutive championships.  They trolled themselves by overreaching.  What they presented had nothing to do with championships.  Instead, it showed that in the aggregate teams with high loss counts tend to have higher loss counts a few years later than teams with higher win counts.  There is valid data in that study used to promote invalid and unsupported conclusions.

This is the classic way the pro tankers try to spin the data to fit their point of view, when in fact that data looked at how many teams got to 55 plus wins, which is the mark they used to define championship caliber teams, not just championship teams.  The results showed that you are far more likely to still be drafting in the lottery within 5 years than you are at winning 55 plus within five years of a sub 25 win season.  

Of course, the same spinners try to convince you that LeBron went to Cleveland because of their lottery picks, when he was always going back to Cleveland regardless of who they drafted.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

This is the classic way the pro tankers try to spin the data to fit their point of view, when in fact that data looked at how many teams got to 55 plus wins, which is the mark they used to define championship caliber teams, not just championship teams.  The results showed that you are far more likely to still be drafting in the lottery within 5 years than you are at winning 55 plus within five years of a sub 25 win season.  

Of course, the same spinners try to convince you that LeBron went to Cleveland because of their lottery picks, when he was always going back to Cleveland regardless of who they drafted.

And you still have yet to come up with any example of even two championship teams built from a roster that was mid tier without a superstar taken in the lottery that just did the right thing, avoided the lottery and kept plugging and got that ring without pointing at LA and their market appeal.

You even admit it - their study is based on a false premise -- that being championship quality is materially different than being a champion.  Like those Memphis teams that won 50+ games were championship quality.