Down with tanking, play to win!

[The X Man Cometh]

 
I didn't read the article, but how on earth GM, coaching and organization are dependent variables? I can see coaching. But if you want to say that GM and organization are dependent variables, then you really have to set someone on top of them who is the independent variable. That while being accurate may not be necessary. The GM or the organization can serve as independent variables.

 
I guess that was a poor way to phrase it. I meant that the outcome hinges on things that depend on who the team is, as well as things that don't depend on who the team is.

 

[bowiac]

 
Well I'd argue that a study is pointless altogether since each data point is pretty much a unique situation.

The same could be said of literally any study ever that tries to make prescriptive pronouncements (i.e. Jared Cosart isn't subject to the studies showing BABIP regresses towards ~.300, since he's a unique situation; the Sun may not rise tomorrow, because tomorrow is a unique day). Yes datapoints are unique, and there's a limit to what we can learn from lumping stuff together. But uniqueness doesn't make studies pointless. There are areas of commonality even within unique snowflakes. 
 
I suspect the sample sizes may simply be too small however, as the history of the NBA draft lottery isn't that long, but the "events" have long tails. For instance, Tim Duncan has been with the Spurs for almost 60% of the entire history of the lottery.

 

[wutang112878]

This is a different way to look at the problem and I think it eliminates some variables if you like WinShares. 
 
Look at each draft slot and get an expected win share for each, so the #1 pick should get you say a 7 win share guy, the #5 gets you a 4 win share guy, at 20 you are lucky to get a 1 win share guy, etc  Check to see if the expected win shares from draft picks is actually reflected in the teams future record.  So in isolation you would expect the #1 pick to blossom in year 3 and increase the win total for the team by 7 games from the time they were drafted.  The formula is probably more complex than that, and it doesnt hold free agency moves constant, but its a framework to measure if getting better picks is indeed helping teams win. 
 
You can also use the same calculation to look at GMs and say 'Danny Ainge is a +1 win share drafter', 'Michael Jordan is a -3 win share drafter'.  If you did this for the GMs I think it would be very telling.  If GMs stayed around long enough we could look at things like 'How effective is 3 consecutive lottery picks for a +1 win share drafter compared to a -1 win share drafter' and its this piece of analysis that gets to the crux of the issue for me.  A competent drafter can bottom out and create a new high quality team.  Michael Jordan could get a free lottery pick from in perpetuity and I dont think he could ever build a contender.

 

[wutang112878]

Thats why I said "If GMs stayed around long enough"
 
I dont know if you think they are good GMs but Presti had a high lottery pick 3 years in a row (2, 4 & 3)  They weren't exactly all lottery picks but Danny had 15, 18, 7 and then 5   Larry Legend had 11, 13 and then 10   So it does happen somewhat

 

[Devizier]

This is a different way to look at the problem and I think it eliminates some variables if you like WinShares. 
 

 
Win Shares would be easiest because they are 1) intuitive 2) freely available on basketball-reference 3) by definition correlated with team wins, but you could do this with anything.
 
The problem really is sample size. You could probably say "GM X has been a good drafter over this period." But you probably couldn't say "GM X has these skills that reproducibly produce good draft selections."

 

[Devizier]

On the subject of the team tanking, one good way to do this is to start Kardashian against a legitimate center. Jesus.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Put it in the game thread, but the C's have certainly gotten a reality check (or perhaps Stevens just hasn't found the magic combinations yet). This team is terrible....9 in a row, 5th worst record in the league, and now on 27 win pace. Only two wins ahead of the 2nd worst team in the league. This is more like it; and I fully expect a Rondo setback soon which will conveniently keep him out of action. 
 
I know there's been some talk of hoping the team can find someone, anyone to take Bass / Humphries /  Crawford, etc....but at this point, do you have anyone who could assume those minutes? Perhaps it doesn't matter.

Salary matching means you'll be getting some stiffs back.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

They are also only a couple of games out of the 8th seed.

 

[Sprowl]

Gerald is past it. He had his prime, and it's long gone. He's a point forward off the bench for Stevens to insert in offensive situations, but his skills have eroded beyond repair. He is the price we pay for all those delicious Nets draft picks from here to eternity. He is our Gerald to bear.
 
We have entered into the MarShon Era. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Gerald Wallace was a guy who never had any real skill in his game, he played hard and was a freak athlete. Now he's old, broken down and has no athleticism. His only value is as a servicable but not particularly good defender, and a solid passer. That works as the 11th man on the bench for vet. minimum, too bad he makes 10M a year.

 

[Koufax]

He has a good haircut and goatee.  But yeah, it's time to stop giving him playing time and pay attention to grooming those on the right side of 30.  Can they cut him?  If he becomes disruptive in the least, that's what I'd do.

 

[scottyno]

rondo back this friday, that should help

 

[thehitcat]

rondo back this friday, that should help

Where's Tonya Harding when we need her...slightly more serious note.  Any rumblings folks are hearing about potential deals for any of our useful vets?  I wouldn't mind continuing the rebuild with an additional pick or two even at the bottom of the round.

 

[scottyno]

Where's Tonya Harding when we need her...slightly more serious note.  Any rumblings folks are hearing about potential deals for any of our useful vets?  I wouldn't mind continuing the rebuild with an additional pick or two even at the bottom of the round.

I assume that has a lot to do with Humphries getting a lot more minutes lately, he's proving he can be a serviceable big on a half season rental for a contending team, and wouldn't be back with the Celtics next year anyway.  Presumably Crawford would go as well since he's also a UFA, though I suppose there's a chance they'd want him back if the price was right going forward as a young 3rd guard scoring option off the bench.