The sixers and building a winner
- Thread starter LondonSox
- Start date
- Status
moly99 said:
I think you're spot on with the distinction. But I also think that in the context of basketball, that role is incredibly important. While the rookie scale mitigates the problem somewhat, franchises still face the challenge of giving men in their very early 20's, many who grew up in poverty, millions of dollars before they have accomplished anything as a professional. And most of these young men have been catered to and treated as the center of their respective universes since before that hit puberty.
There are, of course, some players who develop good habits notwithstanding these pitfalls. Durant certainly comes to mind. Clearly he is of high character and has a heck of a mom. But even Durant has spoken of the importance of Kevin Ollie in establishing a winning culture in OKC. You don't have to rack your brain to come up with franchises who put together rosters full of young talent and saw it all fall apart.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Why would the Celtics trade Green for Bennett or the Timberwolves trade Bennett for Bass.
Neither trade makes sense
Both trades make about as much sense as MIN trading Bennett AND a first-round draft pick for one year of Thaddeus Young. Seems like Flip could get basically the same result - make a heroic push for the 8th playoff seed - and save himself the first round draft pick.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Eh Thaddeus Young works much better than Bennett on a team with Martin, Rubio, and Wiggins. The team will be fast paced pressure defense with Pekovic and Dieng offering rim protection.
I mean there is a chance that team can be above 500
Nice to see Noel finally actually playing.
He, while needing to add some bulk, looks a pretty crazy althete and he is already impacting the defensive game with his rim protection.
Three blocks in his first two nba games is some rare rookie company.
Anyway it's important to note that the players on the sixers play HARD they may lose due to talent and experience but this tanking debate is lazy if you think the sixers are playing to lose. They are run to lose, but there is no sign of the players not working etc.
In part that's because there are no well paid veterans, the top talent is playing to learn and the role players are playing to hold on to their spot. Even new second round picks are playing for contracts next year etc.
They will still suck but they are far better to watch than you might expect. Fast, aggressive, lots of Holy shit plays (good and bad!)
He, while needing to add some bulk, looks a pretty crazy althete and he is already impacting the defensive game with his rim protection.
Three blocks in his first two nba games is some rare rookie company.
Anyway it's important to note that the players on the sixers play HARD they may lose due to talent and experience but this tanking debate is lazy if you think the sixers are playing to lose. They are run to lose, but there is no sign of the players not working etc.
In part that's because there are no well paid veterans, the top talent is playing to learn and the role players are playing to hold on to their spot. Even new second round picks are playing for contracts next year etc.
They will still suck but they are far better to watch than you might expect. Fast, aggressive, lots of Holy shit plays (good and bad!)
I thought this chart was interesting
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/2014-nba-preview-the-sixers-are-going-nowhere-fast/
Fast pace and equal shot distribution has been a recipe for failure in this league for decades. When did this flawed style become something to strive for achieving? Yes it can catch the upper echelon teams sleeping on certain nights to bring a 32-win team to a 40-win squad but this style simply isn't effective for deep playoff runs.
I'll take a go-to scorer, spacing, and spot up shooters to execute halfcourt sets and beat the defensive rotations. That's the offense that advances deep in the playoffs......that's how you have advanced deep in the playoffs for decades.
We don't have the old Nuggets frontcourt speed or shooting abolity to play/shoot effectively at that pace.....we aren't the old Nuggets and even if we were is this what we really want? In Doug Moe's 9 seasons his teams won >47 games exactly twice while making the Conference Finals once.
Vote No tomorrow on pushing the pace and equal shot distribution as our style of the future. It doesn't work.
I'll take a go-to scorer, spacing, and spot up shooters to execute halfcourt sets and beat the defensive rotations. That's the offense that advances deep in the playoffs......that's how you have advanced deep in the playoffs for decades.
We don't have the old Nuggets frontcourt speed or shooting abolity to play/shoot effectively at that pace.....we aren't the old Nuggets and even if we were is this what we really want? In Doug Moe's 9 seasons his teams won >47 games exactly twice while making the Conference Finals once.
Vote No tomorrow on pushing the pace and equal shot distribution as our style of the future. It doesn't work.
HomeRunBaker said:
You can agree or disagree with the strategy they are coaching to, the point was they are clearly and deliberately changing the style of play even while sucking balls, ie this is not a team spinning the wheels aimlessly waiting to get lucky on draft picks.
I don't really agree re pace. You have a young athletic team, frankly right now that's the only major plus, but also if the potential stars work out they are likely to fit that high pace, defensive swarming etc.
And the point I took was that they want to avoid the low quality mid range jumper. That specific point seems a bit obvious, though defining what is a good and what is a bad mid range jumper is unclear (because assuming it's all seems odd).
The wide shot distribution is in part (I suspect) a factor too of having a crap roster and trying to figure out who is worth keeping).
"efficient" shot distribution also seems obviously good, though without defining what efficient means makes it basically a tautology.
Funny how pace, unselfish play and defensive intensity works in every other league in the world. If you are saying that a team will win more close games with Jimmy Chitwood on the roster, well sure.HomeRunBaker said:
I don't see pace and shot distribution as being all that related. Equal shot distribution would seem to mostly be the result of poor talent. Nobody wants Brandon Jennings taking 30% of your shots - regardless of pace, and nobody wants LeBron being so unselfish that he takes only 20% of your shots.
Pace is probably a good thing all else being equal, but older teams tend not to want to run as much, and youth doesn't have a great track record for winning in the NBA. I suspect those are unrelated, but that's open to the interpretation.
Pace is probably a good thing all else being equal, but older teams tend not to want to run as much, and youth doesn't have a great track record for winning in the NBA. I suspect those are unrelated, but that's open to the interpretation.
Pure zone defenses are allowed in every other league in the world to help defend superior offensive players. It's why Anthony Davis only avg 8 FGA/g when at Kentucky......defensive rules force a different offensive philosophy. That isn't the case in the NBA.....it's an offensive stars league. The slower the pace the greater the opportunity for your star to impact the game either with scoring on his own or to create high pct spot-up threes for his teammates.Brickowski said:
Slower pace also limits your opponents easy scoring possibilities which they would need to offset your superior offensive player. Not sure why you included defensive intensity in your post as that does also play in the NBA in a big way.
https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/7469FDB98F1141235463730925568_2818593bbd3.5.1.1913226302335947272.mp4?versionId=.c18yEXvRepAsEQ31x1E2MHshunTbSPJ
Sweet sweet block.
Noel was interesting vs Howard last night, totally overwhelmed on the boards vs the strength of Howard, but did shockingly well on the post defense.
edt: if someone can let me know how to link that better please let me know
Sweet sweet block.
Noel was interesting vs Howard last night, totally overwhelmed on the boards vs the strength of Howard, but did shockingly well on the post defense.
edt: if someone can let me know how to link that better please let me know
LondonSox said:
Im a fan of anyone that blocks Harden like that.
If you watched Cs/Rockets how did Noel's post defense compare to Zeller's? Zeller surprised me in that Dwight could not move him. Dwight might have still had a bucket or two over him but he mostly passed out of the post when Zeller was on him.
I didn't see Zeller, and I'm not a NBA expert as I only played late in life and at a lower level in the UK, so I'm not really great at scouting myself etc, but I read a lot.
Based purely off reading he was a bit more stout than you'd expect, and considering he was bullied around on the glass by Howard (rebounding is not a strength, he can improve but I am dubious he's going to be a monster on the glass). He also used his quickness to pull the chair on him once or twice. He was super active though, great at denying entry passes and getting in good positions, fronting etc. Caused a couple of steals and turnovers with active hands etc. He was able to get his hands on the ball from behind with his fast and freakishly long arms. I have no idea how you can be behind howard and get the ball out of his hands but he did several times.
The stats speak for themselves on the boards, he got 1 total and howard had 7 offensive. But Howard only had 11 points on 5-8 shooting (least of the Rocket's starters) and 5 turnovers. So fits with that. Couldn't stop Howard on the glass but was preventing Howard even getting shots. edit: I forgot to mention that Noel had 6 steals
Assuming Embiid isn't destroyed by his injuries I would expect they want him as the stud rebounder and Noel as the scary help blocker etc.
Right now Noel gets his rebounds via height and athleticism, he's not great technically and he's not one of those guys who the ball seems to gravitate to as they have a great read on the glass. I am sure the technique part and boxing out etc will improve though which will make 1 board games rare.
Based purely off reading he was a bit more stout than you'd expect, and considering he was bullied around on the glass by Howard (rebounding is not a strength, he can improve but I am dubious he's going to be a monster on the glass). He also used his quickness to pull the chair on him once or twice. He was super active though, great at denying entry passes and getting in good positions, fronting etc. Caused a couple of steals and turnovers with active hands etc. He was able to get his hands on the ball from behind with his fast and freakishly long arms. I have no idea how you can be behind howard and get the ball out of his hands but he did several times.
The stats speak for themselves on the boards, he got 1 total and howard had 7 offensive. But Howard only had 11 points on 5-8 shooting (least of the Rocket's starters) and 5 turnovers. So fits with that. Couldn't stop Howard on the glass but was preventing Howard even getting shots. edit: I forgot to mention that Noel had 6 steals
Assuming Embiid isn't destroyed by his injuries I would expect they want him as the stud rebounder and Noel as the scary help blocker etc.
Right now Noel gets his rebounds via height and athleticism, he's not great technically and he's not one of those guys who the ball seems to gravitate to as they have a great read on the glass. I am sure the technique part and boxing out etc will improve though which will make 1 board games rare.
http://www.libertyballers.com/2014/11/6/7165989/sixers-magic-recap-nerlens-noel-injury-kj-mcdaniels-tobias-harris
KJ Mcdaniels backing of himself and only taking a one year deal to become a RFA next year may turn out to be a smart one, he looks potentially fantastic defensively and the eye catching dunk in that link suggests he might have a role. It'll be interesting how that plays out because the Sixers can obviously match anything and have more than enough space to do so, but they also will not throw money around because they can.
Noel had a minor injury, and that would seem to be the other concern (rebounding the other) that he seems fragile but it could also be that the sixers are treating him carefully given the ACL.
MCW is expected to return tomorrow which will help give us a better idea on where the team is heading.
Overall, as that link mentions the Sixers have been a lot more fun to watch than you'd expect given the record, the tanking and the talent levels. They've been fun and while losing still largely competitive despite missing one of the only actual players they have.
KJ Mcdaniels backing of himself and only taking a one year deal to become a RFA next year may turn out to be a smart one, he looks potentially fantastic defensively and the eye catching dunk in that link suggests he might have a role. It'll be interesting how that plays out because the Sixers can obviously match anything and have more than enough space to do so, but they also will not throw money around because they can.
Noel had a minor injury, and that would seem to be the other concern (rebounding the other) that he seems fragile but it could also be that the sixers are treating him carefully given the ACL.
MCW is expected to return tomorrow which will help give us a better idea on where the team is heading.
Overall, as that link mentions the Sixers have been a lot more fun to watch than you'd expect given the record, the tanking and the talent levels. They've been fun and while losing still largely competitive despite missing one of the only actual players they have.
They aren't winning 21 games!Devizier said:
Last night the first blow out loss of the season and not a good reaction, too much one on one and hero ball from under talented players. Noel and MCW out though
Bump.LondonSox said:
Noel and MCW are both back young and as raw as ever. The Sixers are 0-15 and fans are beginning to voice their opinions about the product. This is very sad and getting worse by the day.
HomeRunBaker said:
Where are fans complaining? I don't disbelieve, I just don't see it from NY.
Still don't see a problem with a team exploiting the rules to maximize long-term results. The Sixers were in terrible shape. Sometimes you need to knock the whole thing down and rebuild from scratch.
Nobody is attending the games, season ticket holders are irate at the latest marketing ploy, they aren't maximizing anything without any players.....Noel is a role player and MCW is terrible.....and they have zero leadership in the locker room to teach either of them anything.zenter said:
They were in poor shape before......purposely creating an embarrassment and a losing culture around the team isn't rebuilding. Are they continuing this strategy for next year too? The year after? When do they bring in NBA players to become competitive like they were 2-3 years ago?
I don't think it's true that the fans are not understanding they are on board. But they aren't very happy about the product and the cost of tickets etc.
I think that's fair enough, the owners should discount the tickets and drinks and shit. They need to be doing nice things when they are putting this out on the court.
The media complain way way more than all but a few fans. The noise is coming from them, who have to sit watch and write about garbage so they are being insufferable pricks.
Such is the official Philly media, blogs and real fans are totally different.
That said next year they need to dial it up a bit. They don't need to be amazing next year but they need not be to setting records.
I think the main danger of losing right now is making MCW a gunner which he has no business being.
I think that's fair enough, the owners should discount the tickets and drinks and shit. They need to be doing nice things when they are putting this out on the court.
The media complain way way more than all but a few fans. The noise is coming from them, who have to sit watch and write about garbage so they are being insufferable pricks.
Such is the official Philly media, blogs and real fans are totally different.
That said next year they need to dial it up a bit. They don't need to be amazing next year but they need not be to setting records.
I think the main danger of losing right now is making MCW a gunner which he has no business being.
I just don't see how tanking can build a winner in a world where rookies come in at 19 and become UFA at 24. Apart from exceedingly rare exceptions (Lebron James), what NBA team has ever been a winner led by a bunch of 20-24 year olds? These kids are all going to end up leaving as soon as they can if they're playing on a loser.
The only way I can think of that it would work is doing what Ainge did in 2008.
The only way I can think of that it would work is doing what Ainge did in 2008.
When was the last time a star left the team that drafted him before his age 25 season?ALiveH said:
I don't see how it works based on the culture and inability to learn by playing the game with veterans under competitive game situations. There is a history of amazing talents ruined by entering the league under these conditions.ALiveH said:
Not to mention the majority of lottery picks flat out fail in the league much less become stars. All I can say is good luck as the odds are stacked against them to be even what they were 2-3 years ago woth this strategy.....but it's ashame how they are making a laughingstock out of themselves while embarrassing the league in the process.
The league can't be "embarrassed". It's a profit-seeking organization and the Sixers doing their thing has no impact on the aggregate. So, whatever.
And I'm enjoying the Sixers more than I enjoy a good half the league. Being horrible is an appreciable art.
And I'm enjoying the Sixers more than I enjoy a good half the league. Being horrible is an appreciable art.
Reminds me of the clippers in the bad old days, who drafted a lot of good players in the lottery, their development was stunted & very few of them were successful on the clips. Some things are better now (76ers are more intelligent & less miserly) and some are worse (they're drafting players younger so the players can leave younger). I wonder who on the 76ers roster will make an all star game with them.
I found lots of examples of nba all stars changing teams around ages 25-26.
I found lots of examples of nba all stars changing teams around ages 25-26.
0 for the season without a win in sight is absolutely an embarrassment and a black eye to the league. You have one of your franchises openly saying FU to the integrity of the game.Blacken said:
In addition to tanking, anyone else feel like the Sixers are trying to limit KJ McDaniels' minutes to keep the RFA market for him down next year? I suppose that suppressing a player's value, like trying to win games, is within a team's right.
Yes, 0-82 would be horrible, but does it even half to get that far? There will be lots of stories leading up to 0-26 - longest losing streak - and as that number continues to grow, it's going to overshadow the reat of the league. Can you imagine what happens if the Sixers are 0-fer at the All-Star break?
The talk is just now beginning to brew and if the NBA's primary headlines are about how many consecutive losses one of its franchises has that is a very big negative.wade boggs chicken dinner said:
I just think McDaniels is a 2nd round pick who is getting minutes on this team rather than sitting on the bench or playing in the D-League had everyone not passed on him in the first round. If there is a positive it's that maybe a couple of players on this team can show something to stick in the league with the opportunity for minutes they wouldn't have received otherwise.
Nobody in their front office is embarrassed. They're too smart to put any stock in low-information narratives. They play by the rules of the game, and everyone they care about understands those rules. Some want to change it, but they're not resorting to know-nothing emotionalism to do it.HomeRunBaker said:
There is no such thing as "integrity" in professional sports.
I know no one in the 76ers FO is embarrassed, but people in the NBA's front office have to be embarrassed, and I think that the majority of the folks writing about the topic still think that the 76ers are going to win a handful of games.
But if the 76ers hit 0-40, it seems to me that they are going to drown out every storyline. Maybe at that point, Silver whispers to Hinkie to go get some real NBA players on short contracts. Maybe the NBA sucks it up and lives with the non-stop discussion of whether the 76ers are ever going to win a game.
An 0-82 season makes a mockery of the idea of competition, which can't be good for the product.
David Aldridge has some local color on what's going on in Philly here: http://www.nba.com/2014/news/features/david_aldridge/11/24/morning-tip-philadelphia-76ers-fans-atlanta-hawks-recover-from-danny-ferry-fallout/index.html?ls=iref%3Anbahpt6e&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=NBA%20National%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=GMIB%2011%2F25%2F2014
Why do they "have to be"?wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Meh? The words "NBA" and "competition" only intermittently fit into the same sentence without shifting your brain without a clutch. There are putrid teams every year. 0-82 (which won't happen) is not appreciably different from 9-73 except in fans' narrative-driven herp and/or derp.
Maybe because they care about the quality of their product that drives the revenues.Blacken said:
Teams don't go 9-73 "every year." It will be fun in 4-5 years when they get back to where they were 3 years ago. Celebration? Maybe a parade?
While I don't agree with what the Sixers have done (the history of teams without veteran leadership or a solid system developing young players isn't great) I also can't agree that they should be forced by the league to make a bunch of stupid short sighted moves to try and win a few more games and save the league face.
The NBA has INTENTIONALLY created a league dominated by a few star players because that helps the league market itself, and the league has to deal with the inevitable consequence of that: that teams are sometimes going to tank to try and acquire those star players. I don't think it will actually work in most cases (the chances of the first pick being Anthony Davis is less likely than someone like Anthony Bennett) but tanking is almost inevitable when the league is so sharply divided between haves and have-nots.
The NBA has INTENTIONALLY created a league dominated by a few star players because that helps the league market itself, and the league has to deal with the inevitable consequence of that: that teams are sometimes going to tank to try and acquire those star players. I don't think it will actually work in most cases (the chances of the first pick being Anthony Davis is less likely than someone like Anthony Bennett) but tanking is almost inevitable when the league is so sharply divided between haves and have-nots.
moly99 said:
Is this not more of a consequence of the dynamics of the sport itself, rather than some marketing strategy from the commissioner's office?
IMHO it's a little of both. Certainly the stars are coddled by the officials, and I can't help believing that they do so with the tacit approval of the commissioner.slamminsammya said:
I'm gonna say it's mostly the dynamics of the sport. A star like LeBron James can be on the court for about 17% of his team's total minutes (5 positions x 48 minutes in a game = 240 total minutes, if LeBron plays for 40 minutes, that's 16.67%), while Tom Brady is only on the field for about 4.5% of his team's total minutes (11 positions x 60 minutes in a game = 660 total minutes, if Brady plays 30 minutes, that's 4.5%). Individual NBA players have a much larger impact on the game than in most other team sports, and the marketing strategy has very little to do with it. Check out this fangraphs article wondering what kind of impact LeBron would have if he played baseball:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/lets-imagine-a-baseball-playing-lebron-james/
In order for a baseball player to have the same impact that LeBron has, that player would have to be worth about 42 WAR. In other words, it's not possible, by several orders of magnitude. The point is, teams tank for star players not because of how the NBA is marketed, but because of how the game is played. Whether or not tanking is the best way to get stars is something else.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/lets-imagine-a-baseball-playing-lebron-james/
In order for a baseball player to have the same impact that LeBron has, that player would have to be worth about 42 WAR. In other words, it's not possible, by several orders of magnitude. The point is, teams tank for star players not because of how the NBA is marketed, but because of how the game is played. Whether or not tanking is the best way to get stars is something else.
I'm going to disagree re qb, this is surely the one position in another sport with as much impact as a basketball player offensively.
But even then the lack of defensive impact would be a difference.
They don't tank in the nfl, but you think the Colts are unhappy about winning the draft that year they got luck?
In fact quarterback is probably the best comparison to a basketball star, and look how unbalanced it makes the nfl.
Take the Jets, desperately searching for a qb and adrift without. Or the Eagles, if they had an elite qb they'd be a super bowl contender. But how can they get one? Good ones almost never reach free agency (Brees only recent example). If you are a good team without a qb you are only ever an outside bet, would the Eagles have been better off being shit this year and getting a mariota?
It's just the rest is much more changeable.
But even then the lack of defensive impact would be a difference.
They don't tank in the nfl, but you think the Colts are unhappy about winning the draft that year they got luck?
In fact quarterback is probably the best comparison to a basketball star, and look how unbalanced it makes the nfl.
Take the Jets, desperately searching for a qb and adrift without. Or the Eagles, if they had an elite qb they'd be a super bowl contender. But how can they get one? Good ones almost never reach free agency (Brees only recent example). If you are a good team without a qb you are only ever an outside bet, would the Eagles have been better off being shit this year and getting a mariota?
It's just the rest is much more changeable.
Yeah I never bought the "you can't win a Super Bowl without an elite QB" as the evidence over the years is overwhelming that you can.
Doug Williams
Mark Rypien
Jeff Hostetler
Brad Johnson
These guys sucked and won Super Bowls.....I mean really were not good NFL quarterbacks.
Dilfer, McMahon, Brady's first, Wilson last year.....all "game managers" on those teams. Flacco certainly isn't elite, Phil Simms blah, the list goes on and on.
The NBA is different where one elite player can elevate the team to legitimate build around him. The problem with tanking is that you're relying on a) winning the lottery which the odds are against even with the worst record and b) having this player be a game changer as most aren't.
Doug Williams
Mark Rypien
Jeff Hostetler
Brad Johnson
These guys sucked and won Super Bowls.....I mean really were not good NFL quarterbacks.
Dilfer, McMahon, Brady's first, Wilson last year.....all "game managers" on those teams. Flacco certainly isn't elite, Phil Simms blah, the list goes on and on.
The NBA is different where one elite player can elevate the team to legitimate build around him. The problem with tanking is that you're relying on a) winning the lottery which the odds are against even with the worst record and b) having this player be a game changer as most aren't.
Euclis20 said:
As long as salary is commensurate then usage shouldn't matter. If a 42 WAR baseball player was paid like a 42 WAR player then it would still theoretically be a neutral contract for his team. The problem is that NBA contracts are capped, which isn't true for any other sports league in the world AFAIK. Lebron was a huge boost to Miami because he was a 42 WAR player being paid like a 17 WAR player. (About 40% of his market value.)
By comparison look at Garnett with the Timberwolves. He was one of the best players of all time, but he was also paid to be that player, so his team wasn't even an automatic playoff team much less a contender.
I'm not sure what that has to do with your earlier claim that people were responding to. Basketball has always been a sport where one dominant player can change a team. When there are five guys on the floor one LeBron makes the sort of difference that no baseball player can. If Fangraphs can be taken at its word having LeBron in your NBA lineup is the equivalent of having five Mike Trouts on your MLB team. That's not an "NBA marketing plan", that's just how the game works out.
HomeRunBaker said:
There's a huge difference between 'elite' and 'suck'. Rypien, Johnson, and Hostetler were all good QBs. Both Johnson and Rypien had appeared in Pro Bowls prior to their SB seasons, and had 92.9 and 97.9 QB ratings the year they won their SBs, respectively. Rypien collapsed after that season, but was quite good leading up to that point.
When has a team even appeared in a Super Bowl in which their starting QB had a downright bad season (which would fit the 'suck' qualifier)? The only one I recall in recent history was Rex Grossman in 2007 (and I just realized I had blocked out the Manning Giants the year after). You certainly don't need an elite QB, but it's exceedingly rare that you're winning without a better than average QB, unless of course you have arguably the greatest defenses of all time on the other side of the ball (McMahon and Dilfer).
nighthob said:
I'm not denying that NBA stars have a bigger impact than they do in sports with 9+ players on the field. However it's the max contract size that has really created a superstar driven league rather than a league driven by good teams. The NBA chose to cap contract sizes because they want super teams (and because they thought it might split the player's union.) The only thing the league is upset about is that it turns out the leverage under the new system is mostly held by the players rather than the owners.
No. You have it exactly backwards, they created the cap to break up superteams. It was instituted at a time when two teams had rosters full of hall of fame players and most of the rest of the NBA was shit out of luck. It did have the accidental side effect of allowing teams with one or two superstars to compete for titles, but did so by making it nigh on impossible to have teams like the 80s Lakers or Celtics. And those two teams didn't win 80% of the decade's title by virtue of being "good teams" unless by "good teams" you mean "team with 3-5 future hall of famers in the starting lineup".
In any event, this is really irrelevant. Because single player huge impacts are just part of NBA history and far predate the salary cap. The Warriors went from a .444 team pre-Wilt to a .653 one after he arrived. Cincinnati had a 14 game bounce after adding Oscar Robertson. Boston had a ten game bounce after adding Dave Cowens and a huge bounce after adding Larry Bird. Were those the result of "NBA superstar marketing" too? It's just the dynamics of the game. Again, Fangraphs calculated James impact in baseball terms as being a 42 WAR equivalency. That's not NBA marketing.
In any event, this is really irrelevant. Because single player huge impacts are just part of NBA history and far predate the salary cap. The Warriors went from a .444 team pre-Wilt to a .653 one after he arrived. Cincinnati had a 14 game bounce after adding Oscar Robertson. Boston had a ten game bounce after adding Dave Cowens and a huge bounce after adding Larry Bird. Were those the result of "NBA superstar marketing" too? It's just the dynamics of the game. Again, Fangraphs calculated James impact in baseball terms as being a 42 WAR equivalency. That's not NBA marketing.
mt8thsw9th said:
Oh no doubt. I'm referring to all these people preaching about how you need an elite QB to win.......you don't. I agree that you need someone competent and even the crappy to ordinary guys can put up a decent year that results in a Super Bowl as we've seen.
nighthob said:
We are arguing two different things and I am obviously failing to explain the difference. I fully agree that basketball is influenced by individual players to a greater degree than other sports, and that the chances of a team finding a player who gives them 100-200% above their contract value is far greater in the NBA than other leagues.
However the NBA surely knows this just as well as the fans and instead of taking steps to make it easier for teams to compete without superstar players they have gone in exactly the opposite direction. And I believe it is very obvious that they have done so for marketing purposes rather than a perverse desire to see parity reduced.
nighthob said:
Are you referring to the salary cap? I'm not talking about that. I am referring to the "maximum individual contract" that artificially caps the contract sizes of players like Kevin Durant to something like 40% of their market value.
- Status