Trading Iggy and Vucevic and getting no return is why Doug's gone. Doug was to stuck in his ways and when you trade value and get nothing in return the end is near. I'm not a Doug guy but when you trade ur best player and a 7ft center your gonna be much worse. If Bynum played this season the Sixers probably win the east.
dude, he traded harkless and a future 1 as well. and maybe he would have realized that vucevic could play (as I stated during the seaason last year) instead of turds like tony battie. :roll:
collins was the worst thing to happen to this franchise since Larry Brown. The similarities are scary
Trading Iggy and Vucevic and getting no return is why Doug's gone. Doug was to stuck in his ways and when you trade value and get nothing in return the end is near. I'm not a Doug guy but when you trade ur best player and a 7ft center your gonna be much worse. If Bynum played this season the Sixers probably win the east.
dude, he traded harkless and a future 1 as well. and maybe he would have realized that vucevic could play (as I stated during the seaason last year) instead of turds like tony battie. :roll:
collins was the worst thing to happen to this franchise since Larry Brown. The similarities are scary
yes Larry Brown making an NBA Finals was just horrible, horrible I tell ya. can't believe we had to watch that crap :fp:
Trading Iggy and Vucevic and getting no return is why Doug's gone. Doug was to stuck in his ways and when you trade value and get nothing in return the end is near. I'm not a Doug guy but when you trade ur best player and a 7ft center your gonna be much worse. If Bynum played this season the Sixers probably win the east.
dude, he traded harkless and a future 1 as well. and maybe he would have realized that vucevic could play (as I stated during the seaason last year) instead of turds like tony battie. :roll:
collins was the worst thing to happen to this franchise since Larry Brown. The similarities are scary
yes Larry Brown making an NBA Finals was just horrible, horrible I tell ya. can't believe we had to watch that crap :fp:
He did take Larry Hughes over Paul Pierce.
Alright, alright, alright!
Tom O. "I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
-The Writer
dude, he traded harkless and a future 1 as well. and maybe he would have realized that vucevic could play (as I stated during the seaason last year) instead of turds like tony battie. :roll:
collins was the worst thing to happen to this franchise since Larry Brown. The similarities are scary
yes Larry Brown making an NBA Finals was just horrible, horrible I tell ya. can't believe we had to watch that crap :fp:
He did take Larry Hughes over Paul Pierce.
and sell off every decent young talent/way to acqure talent...then left with years left on his contract once it was time to suffer the consequences.
'01 sixers = '93 phillies. fun years, but the epitome of lightning in a bottle. or fluke. same difference
and sell off every decent young talent/way to acqure talent...then left with years left on his contract once it was time to suffer the consequences.
'01 sixers = '93 phillies. fun years, but the epitome of lightning in a bottle. or fluke. same difference
larry brown is a whiny bitch. and a whore
yup he sure is, but he is one of the greatest coaches of all time and went to the playoffs 5 straight years with the Sixers (not exactly lightning in a bottle). I recall his (and Iverson's) era here fondly.
it's been established you won't bet on your own teams but i'd be willing to bet that art hinkie, his advanced degrees and advanced stats don't make the playoffs 5 years in a row here.
and sell off every decent young talent/way to acqure talent...then left with years left on his contract once it was time to suffer the consequences.
'01 sixers = '93 phillies. fun years, but the epitome of lightning in a bottle. or fluke. same difference
larry brown is a whiny bitch. and a whore
yup he sure is, but he is one of the greatest coaches of all time and went to the playoffs 5 straight years with the Sixers (not exactly lightning in a bottle). I recall his (and Iverson's) era here fondly.
it's been established you won't bet on your own teams but i'd be willing to bet that art hinkie, his advanced degrees and advanced stats don't make the playoffs 5 years in a row here.
Making the nba playoffs isn't an accomplishment dude...more teams make it than don't. I have said a billion times over the last 10 years that the sixers would be better off missing the playoffs than making it. Sorry, but first round demolitions dont do much for me.
who is art hinkie? not only do you rip a hire you don't know anything about...you don't even know his name.
and sell off every decent young talent/way to acqure talent...then left with years left on his contract once it was time to suffer the consequences.
'01 sixers = '93 phillies. fun years, but the epitome of lightning in a bottle. or fluke. same difference
larry brown is a whiny bitch. and a whore
yup he sure is, but he is one of the greatest coaches of all time and went to the playoffs 5 straight years with the Sixers (not exactly lightning in a bottle). I recall his (and Iverson's) era here fondly.
it's been established you won't bet on your own teams but i'd be willing to bet that art hinkie, his advanced degrees and advanced stats don't make the playoffs 5 years in a row here.
Making the nba playoffs isn't an accomplishment dude...more teams make it than don't. I have said a billion times over the last 10 years that the sixers would be better off missing the playoffs than making it. Sorry, but first round demolitions dont do much for me.
who is art hinkie? not only do you rip a hire you don't know anything about...you don't even know his name.
classic
5 years in a row for brown is the longest stretch since the early to mid 80s for this franchise. not so easy for the sixers.
art or sam, close enough. sue me for fucking up his 1st name.
Trading Iggy and Vucevic and getting no return is why Doug's gone. Doug was to stuck in his ways and when you trade value and get nothing in return the end is near. I'm not a Doug guy but when you trade ur best player and a 7ft center your gonna be much worse. If Bynum played this season the Sixers probably win the east.
dude, he traded harkless and a future 1 as well. and maybe he would have realized that vucevic could play (as I stated during the seaason last year) instead of turds like tony battie. :roll:
collins was the worst thing to happen to this franchise since Larry Brown. The similarities are scary
all you said about vucevic last year was that, at first, he reminded you of spencer hawes. then you said it "looks like he can play" in january...this is when everyone else was saying the same thing. but the dude was awful down the stretch last season. awful. lavoy allen was outplaying him (he was getting vuc's minutes, not battie). and you did not say anything about him when he was traded.
the sixers took a chance for the first time in over a decade last year on bynum. it didn't work out. sometimes these things happen. if it worked, they'd have been in the mix for the division, and might still be playing right now. it was a chance with a big enough upside that they had to take. and the first round pick is lottery protected till '15. not a big deal.
you act like it was just another ho hum bad season for this team and fail to acknowledge that they took this huge risk last summer. the typical ed snyder run sixers would have certainly maintained the status quo after getting to within one game of the eastern conference finals. you have to roll the dice every once in a while in this league because it's so hard to get over the hump. it appears that this new ownership group isn't afraid to do so, as evidenced by the hinkie hire, and that is a glimmer of hope to actual fans of this team....lb was great for this franchise for about 5 years before the bottom fell out and billy king and him went about destroying the franchise. but comparing the 01 sixers to the 93 phils just makes no sense at all.
Trading Iggy and Vucevic and getting no return is why Doug's gone. Doug was to stuck in his ways and when you trade value and get nothing in return the end is near. I'm not a Doug guy but when you trade ur best player and a 7ft center your gonna be much worse. If Bynum played this season the Sixers probably win the east.
dude, he traded harkless and a future 1 as well. and maybe he would have realized that vucevic could play (as I stated during the seaason last year) instead of turds like tony battie. :roll:
collins was the worst thing to happen to this franchise since Larry Brown. The similarities are scary
all you said about vucevic last year was that, at first, he reminded you of spencer hawes. then you said it "looks like he can play" in january...this is when everyone else was saying the same thing. but the dude was awful down the stretch last season. awful. lavoy allen was outplaying him (he was getting vuc's minutes, not battie). and you did not say anything about him when he was traded.
the sixers took a chance for the first time in over a decade last year on bynum. it didn't work out. sometimes these things happen. if it worked, they'd have been in the mix for the division, and might still be playing right now. it was a chance with a big enough upside that they had to take. and the first round pick is lottery protected till '15. not a big deal.
you act like it was just another ho hum bad season for this team and fail to acknowledge that they took this huge risk last summer. the typical ed snyder run sixers would have certainly maintained the status quo after getting to within one game of the eastern conference finals. you have to roll the dice every once in a while in this league because it's so hard to get over the hump. it appears that this new ownership group isn't afraid to do so, as evidenced by the hinkie hire, and that is a glimmer of hope to actual fans of this team....lb was great for this franchise for about 5 years before the bottom fell out and billy king and him went about destroying the franchise. but comparing the 01 sixers to the 93 phils just makes no sense at all.
Unlike you, I don't pretend to know stuff about players with whom I'm unfamiliar. I didn't know Vucevic coming out of USC. Saw him play a handful of college games, but not enough to have an opinion on whether or not he'd be a good pro. After watching him play some (due to collins confusing rotations and hatred of playing or developing young players) I began to like him. He brought energy, was aggressive on the boards, and had nice touch both in (ability to finish with both hands) and out of the paint. I don't think it's fair to say he was being outplayed by anyone since the dumb ass coach never played him...instead giving his minutes to guys like tony battie. Doesn't matter how he was playing, they were better off giving a young player (and first round pick) minutes over veteran turds like battie...but as we would come to realize, this was collins' modus operandi (hello, royal ivey...always fun watching him at the end of tight games)
I was always skeptical of the bynum trade. Like I said when the trade went down, I was really looking forward to seeing him in 40 regular season games. When a franchise as bad as the sixers makes a big move, I think fans reaction is positive because they are doing something, regardless of whether or not these moves are the correct ones (trading iguodala, trading dalembert, trading for bynum, bringing collins in to coach/have say in personnel, etc).
it's ed snider dude. he's not in the pretzel business.
big difference between being willing to make moves and being smart about making moves. Snider is an easy scapegoat. What he failed to do was bring in proper people to run the team (like rod thorn, who you defended after I rightfully ripped that move). It is refreshing to see the new owners go with a guy like Hinkie, who is the franchises first real GM since the 80s. Any Sixer fan with any semblance of a clue should be ecstatic about this hire. It's the best thing to happen here since the moses malone trade.
2001 sixers = fluke. 1993 phillies = fluke. Both teams were built around one person (phils one main position player/pitcher...schilling and dykstra as their best players, neither were superstars). Neither team had any chance to sustain. The parallels are blatant.
You have been slurping the sixers for years (consistently stating how they're pointed in the right direction..., defending guys like rod thorn and evan turner, overvaluing the fluky series win vs the bulls, etc). Their record, lack of playoff success, and failure to construct any kind of plan speaks for itself. Blind optimism defines you around here...take your head out of the clouds macnow. Over the last 30 years they have been an abortion of a franchise. I love the Hinkie move...I think it was the best possible move they could have made. As long as they don't re-sign bynum or turner, this offseason is already a sweeping success because they finally have competence in the front office. For once, the future is realistically bright.
My offseason wish list...in order of preference
1 - Throw Bynum a deuce
2 - Trade Turner
3 - Trade down in draft...acquire future picks and expiring contracts
4 - Trade Hawes
5 - Sign Wright
6 - Stink it up next year and get a top 3 pick (shouldn't have to worry about the first part of that with the shitheap that collins, thorn, and dileo left here).
For the first time in a long time I'm excited about the sixers. They finally have direction. I wish there was a way to convince Harris to buy the Phillies.
your predictable insults, when being challenged, are both sad and cute at the same time.
it's clear you just didn't watch this team last year if you still think tony battie gained vucevik's playing time down the stretch last season. keep pretending like you did though. battie's minute's decreased as the season went on to the point where he barely played at all in april. i think he only appeared in the 2 games after they clinched in that entire final month of the season. so, i have absolutely no idea how you arrived at that conclusion other than to assume you are merely guessing.
vuc was still getting 15 minutes a game (only a couple less minutes than his max when he was playing well), despite shooting 34%. after the first couple months of the season, he was just terrible. it's clear why lavoy allen, not battie, was getting a little bit more playing time. that's what earned allen the playoff minutes when the rotation was shortened (batttie?....0 minutes all post season--again, no idea what you are talking about regarding him). tony battie
snider's primary job was to hire the right people. he spent a decade hiring the wrong people. easy or not--he's the correct scapegoat. ed snider was a horrible owner. only cared about keeping the arena not empty. thank god he is gone.
i spent 2 years enjoying that sixers run because they were heading in the right direction. it all came to a screeching halt due to the bynum injury. nobody overvalued the bulls win. in the post that you replied to, i even used that as a reference to how the ed snider-run sixers would have used that as an excuse to maintain the status quo rather than taking the franchise's first risk in decades on bynum.
the 93 phils were a one and done team. the 01 sixers were a 3 year gradual build and then were relatively decent for the next couple seasons. not comparable. and you think the 93 phils were only built around schilling and dykstra?.....what? that squad was the definition an entire team effort.
tony battie's minutes in the final month of the 11/12 season
det 13 mins
mil 10 mins
nj dnp
ind dnp
cle dnp
ind dnp
orl dnp
nj dnp
tor dnp
nj dnp
bos dnp
orl 1 minute
tor dnp
mia dnp
39 dnp's (or 0 minutes played) in a 66 game season for, one, tony battie. yeah, he was getting vuc's minutes down the stretch last year. you were watching this team? come on man.
tony battie's minutes in the final month of the 11/12 season
det 13 mins
mil 10 mins
nj dnp
ind dnp
cle dnp
ind dnp
orl dnp
nj dnp
tor dnp
nj dnp
bos dnp
orl 1 minute
tor dnp
mia dnp
39 dnp's (or 0 minutes played) in a 66 game season for, one, tony battie. yeah, he was getting vuc's minutes down the stretch last year. you were watching this team? come on man.
Facts were talking about facts...............................
gotta say I was shocked to wake up this morning and see that the NBA champion will once again contain LeBron or Tim Duncan. shocked I tell ya that's 19 out of 22 years the champion will contain Lebron, Tim Duncan Shaq, Kobe, Olajuwon or Jordan for those stat guys doing the counting. just as I said previously...carry on
gotta say I was shocked to wake up this morning and see that the NBA champion will once again contain LeBron or Tim Duncan. shocked I tell ya that's 19 out of 22 years the champion will contain Lebron, Tim Duncan Shaq, Kobe, Olajuwon or Jordan for those stat guys doing the counting. just as I said previously...carry on
i don't understand your argument. are you assuming that "stat guys" (and really i'm not one, i just understand that there is more value in obtaining as much info as possible, like brad stevens) are under the assumption that they can win an nba championship without a star player? if so, how did you arrive at that conclusion? because it doesn't make sense.
hinkie (the only reason you are posting in this thread now) came from an organization that carefully built their roster around highly efficient players and cleared enough cap space until they were ready to obtain a star player, like james harden last summer. they are now going to go after dwight howard.
gotta say I was shocked to wake up this morning and see that the NBA champion will once again contain LeBron or Tim Duncan. shocked I tell ya that's 19 out of 22 years the champion will contain Lebron, Tim Duncan Shaq, Kobe, Olajuwon or Jordan for those stat guys doing the counting. just as I said previously...carry on
i don't understand your argument. are you assuming that "stat guys" (and really i'm not one, i just understand that there is more value in obtaining as much info as possible, like brad stevens) are under the assumption that they can win an nba championship without a star player? if so, how did you arrive at that conclusion? because it doesn't make sense.
hinkie (the only reason you are posting in this thread now) came from an organization that carefully built their roster around highly efficient players and cleared enough cap space until they were ready to obtain a star player, like james harden last summer. they are now going to go after dwight howard.
1 - there is no argument. if you don't have a top 5 player in the NBA you aren't winning a title. that's been established over the past 22 years. don't need an advanced degree from Stanford to understand that (well maybe you do since some on here haven't grasped that concept yet, even with overwhelming factual evidence).
2 - for all the greatness of the Rockets and their so-called analytics they have won 1 playoff series in 6 years since their current analytics team took over. or as many as the 76ers have in the same timeframe.
now let's go with actual facts:
2005 - 51 wins
2006 - 34 wins
2007 - 52 wins
Advanced analytics Daryl Morey takes over in May 2007
2008 - 55 wins
2009 - 53 wins
2010 - 42 wins
2011 - 43 wins
2012 - 34 wins
2013 - 45 wins
so the analytics under this regime has taken a team with 52 wins in the year before taking over with a good 2 year crest but has since dropped their win totals from the mid 50s to a high of the mid 40s over the past 4 years with 1 playoff series win in said time, and only 1 playoff appearance in the past 4 years. so are the analytics really working for the rockets? where is the evidence?
and this is the system and people you want to emulate? hiring this guys assistant is a 'great' hire as was branded about here a few times?
funny how statistics guys love statistics...except when it comes to the most important statistic of all...wins and loses.
gotta say I was shocked to wake up this morning and see that the NBA champion will once again contain LeBron or Tim Duncan. shocked I tell ya that's 19 out of 22 years the champion will contain Lebron, Tim Duncan Shaq, Kobe, Olajuwon or Jordan for those stat guys doing the counting. just as I said previously...carry on
i don't understand your argument. are you assuming that "stat guys" (and really i'm not one, i just understand that there is more value in obtaining as much info as possible, like brad stevens) are under the assumption that they can win an nba championship without a star player? if so, how did you arrive at that conclusion? because it doesn't make sense.
hinkie (the only reason you are posting in this thread now) came from an organization that carefully built their roster around highly efficient players and cleared enough cap space until they were ready to obtain a star player, like james harden last summer. they are now going to go after dwight howard.
1 - there is no argument. if you don't have a top 5 player in the NBA you aren't winning a title. that's been established over the past 22 years. don't need an advanced degree from Stanford to understand that (well maybe you do since some on here haven't grasped that concept yet, even with overwhelming factual evidence).
2 - for all the greatness of the Rockets and their so-called analytics they have won 1 playoff series in 6 years since their current analytics team took over. or as many as the 76ers have in the same timeframe.
now let's go with actual facts:
2005 - 51 wins
2006 - 34 wins
2007 - 52 wins
Advanced analytics Daryl Morey takes over in May 2007
2008 - 55 wins
2009 - 53 wins
2010 - 42 wins
2011 - 43 wins
2012 - 34 wins
2013 - 45 wins
so the analytics under this regime has taken a team with 52 wins in the year before taking over with a good 2 year crest but has since dropped their win totals from the mid 50s to a high of the mid 40s over the past 4 years with 1 playoff series win in said time, and only 1 playoff appearance in the past 4 years. so are the analytics really working for the rockets? where is the evidence?
and this is the system and people you want to emulate? hiring this guys assistant is a 'great' hire as was branded about here a few times?
funny how statistics guys love statistics...except when it comes to the most important statistic of all...wins and loses.
the spurs were actually one of the first teams to utilized analytics. they've won how many titles? them and the mavericks. mavs won the title 2 years ago. mike zarren's name (celtic's assistant gm/analytic guro) is always being mentioned whenever a gm spot opens up. he reportedly turned down the sixers last month. i bet you would have loved him at first since he came from the celtics...and then would be shocked to hear how he uses advanced stats like brad stevens.
and if there is no argument that a star player is needed to win an nba championship, what was your point in bringing it up as if you were arguing with someone? there is no argument from anyone, including "stats guys." your premise for starting an argument there is flawed.
the rockets spent the previous few years prior to the last one, dealing with unlucky injuries and clearing out cap space to put them in the position they are in now. they acquired a star player last year and are in a position to add another this summer. this is what a lot of people want the sixers to do in the next few years. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/90241 ... iting-team
the spurs were actually one of the first teams to utilized analytics. they've won how many titles? them and the mavericks. mavs won the title 2 years ago. mike zarren's name (celtic's assistant gm/analytic guro) is always being mentioned whenever a gm spot opens up. he reportedly turned down the sixers last month. i bet you would have loved him at first since he came from the celtics...and then would be shocked to hear how he uses advanced stats like brad stevens.
and if there is no argument that a star player is needed to win an nba championship, what was your point in bringing it up as if you were arguing with someone? there is no argument from anyone, including "stats guys." your premise for starting an argument there is flawed.
the rockets spent the previous few years prior to the last one, dealing with unlucky injuries and clearing out cap space to put them in the position they are in now. they acquired a star player last year and are in a position to add another this summer. this is what a lot of people want the sixers to do in the next few years. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/90241 ... iting-team
you just brought up analytics and spurs titles in the same sentence so clearly you think it has played a role for them. i contend at best it has played a very minor role. so when Tim Duncan retires and the Spurs win a fucking title using said analytics without him give me a call.
still looking for proof that analytics leads to wins in the NBA.
as for the Sixers I guess 1 playoff appearance in the next 4 years will be good enough as long as they get cap space. beautiful. should be a heck of a run. can't fucking wait.
edit: my main contention is just because you can produce a stat for every little thing in basketball doesn't mean they have value to winning and losing. just because someone can produce a 20 page report doesn't mean all 20 pages have equal value. I think 99% of advanced stats in basketball help very little to winning and losing. it's a non-complicated game that people are trying to make much more complicated than it really is.
the spurs were actually one of the first teams to utilized analytics. they've won how many titles? them and the mavericks. mavs won the title 2 years ago. mike zarren's name (celtic's assistant gm/analytic guro) is always being mentioned whenever a gm spot opens up. he reportedly turned down the sixers last month. i bet you would have loved him at first since he came from the celtics...and then would be shocked to hear how he uses advanced stats like brad stevens.
and if there is no argument that a star player is needed to win an nba championship, what was your point in bringing it up as if you were arguing with someone? there is no argument from anyone, including "stats guys." your premise for starting an argument there is flawed.
the rockets spent the previous few years prior to the last one, dealing with unlucky injuries and clearing out cap space to put them in the position they are in now. they acquired a star player last year and are in a position to add another this summer. this is what a lot of people want the sixers to do in the next few years. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/90241 ... iting-team
you just brought up analytics and spurs titles in the same sentence so clearly you think it has played a role for them. i contend at best it has played a very minor role. so when Tim Duncan retires and the Spurs win a fucking title using said analytics without him give me a call.
still looking for proof that analytics leads to wins in the NBA.
as for the Sixers I guess 1 playoff appearance in the next 4 years will be good enough as long as they get cap space. beautiful. should be a heck of a run. can't fucking wait.
I'm not sure where this argument is going but the Spurs didn't use analytics when they tanked the season by not playing a healthy David Robinson to get Duncan ahead of the Sixers. I'm still bitter :evil:
Alright, alright, alright!
Tom O. "I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
-The Writer
the spurs were actually one of the first teams to utilized analytics. they've won how many titles? them and the mavericks. mavs won the title 2 years ago. mike zarren's name (celtic's assistant gm/analytic guro) is always being mentioned whenever a gm spot opens up. he reportedly turned down the sixers last month. i bet you would have loved him at first since he came from the celtics...and then would be shocked to hear how he uses advanced stats like brad stevens.
and if there is no argument that a star player is needed to win an nba championship, what was your point in bringing it up as if you were arguing with someone? there is no argument from anyone, including "stats guys." your premise for starting an argument there is flawed.
the rockets spent the previous few years prior to the last one, dealing with unlucky injuries and clearing out cap space to put them in the position they are in now. they acquired a star player last year and are in a position to add another this summer. this is what a lot of people want the sixers to do in the next few years. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/90241 ... iting-team
you just brought up analytics and spurs titles in the same sentence so clearly you think it has played a role for them. i contend at best it has played a very minor role. so when Tim Duncan retires and the Spurs win a fucking title using said analytics without him give me a call.
still looking for proof that analytics leads to wins in the NBA.
as for the Sixers I guess 1 playoff appearance in the next 4 years will be good enough as long as they get cap space. beautiful. should be a heck of a run. can't fucking wait.
edit: my main contention is just because you can produce a stat for every little thing in basketball doesn't mean they have value to winning and losing. just because someone can produce a 20 page report doesn't mean all 20 pages have equal value. I think 99% of advanced stats in basketball help very little to winning and losing. it's a non-complicated game that people are trying to make much more complicated than it really is.
23 teams utilize them, including the 2 teams in the finals and many of of the past champions over the last few years.
the celtics use them....and you used them in one of your examples when you were going back and forth with the other guy here a few weeks ago. having a superstar or two is obviously the best way to win a championship. nobody disputes that. but you have to build an efficient core around them and you have to know how to obtain them in the first place.
the nba is fucked up on so many levels with their cap restrictions and with the draft being an absolute total crap shoot that it's almost a requirement for teams to get creative in how they operate. things are not always black and white. and advanced stats is just another tool to help.
i came across this article by eskin's son (who seems to be the exact opposite kind of human being as his dad) ripping apart what larry brown said recently. it is worth a read:
the spurs were actually one of the first teams to utilized analytics. they've won how many titles? them and the mavericks. mavs won the title 2 years ago. mike zarren's name (celtic's assistant gm/analytic guro) is always being mentioned whenever a gm spot opens up. he reportedly turned down the sixers last month. i bet you would have loved him at first since he came from the celtics...and then would be shocked to hear how he uses advanced stats like brad stevens.
and if there is no argument that a star player is needed to win an nba championship, what was your point in bringing it up as if you were arguing with someone? there is no argument from anyone, including "stats guys." your premise for starting an argument there is flawed.
the rockets spent the previous few years prior to the last one, dealing with unlucky injuries and clearing out cap space to put them in the position they are in now. they acquired a star player last year and are in a position to add another this summer. this is what a lot of people want the sixers to do in the next few years. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/90241 ... iting-team
you just brought up analytics and spurs titles in the same sentence so clearly you think it has played a role for them. i contend at best it has played a very minor role. so when Tim Duncan retires and the Spurs win a fucking title using said analytics without him give me a call.
still looking for proof that analytics leads to wins in the NBA.
as for the Sixers I guess 1 playoff appearance in the next 4 years will be good enough as long as they get cap space. beautiful. should be a heck of a run. can't fucking wait.
edit: my main contention is just because you can produce a stat for every little thing in basketball doesn't mean they have value to winning and losing. just because someone can produce a 20 page report doesn't mean all 20 pages have equal value. I think 99% of advanced stats in basketball help very little to winning and losing. it's a non-complicated game that people are trying to make much more complicated than it really is.
23 teams utilize them, including the 2 teams in the finals and many of of the past champions over the last few years.
the celtics use them....and you used them in one of your examples when you were going back and forth with the other guy here a few weeks ago. having a superstar or two is obviously the best way to win a championship. nobody disputes that. but you have to build an efficient core around them and you have to know how to obtain them in the first place.
the nba is fucked up on so many levels with their cap restrictions and with the draft being an absolute total crap shoot that it's almost a requirement for teams to get creative in how they operate. things are not always black and white. and advanced stats is just another tool to help.
i came across this article by eskin's son (who seems to be the exact opposite kind of human being as his dad) ripping apart what larry brown said recently. it is worth a read:
just read spike's article you posted and even the 2 links in said article.
article - larry brown basketball hall of famer or spike eskin (and the fixer) - hmm whose basketball opinion is more valuable....hard to say...hmmm....once again i'll go with the hall of famer and only person to coach both and NCAA and NBA Champion over that guy(s).
link 1 - wow 8 years to determine that good help defense is more valuable than not, don't leave david west wide open from 15 feet (could have told you that after seeing him play about 50 times at Xavier including a handful live in person) and 3 point shots are more valuable than 2. wow breaking fucking news there. just because NBA guys can't do the math on 2 pt shots vs. 3 pt shots doesn't mean I need a 20 page report on it. rick pitino figured out the 2 vs 3 pt shot in 1987.
link 2 - so david lee is a bad post defender. I imagine watching him play a bunch of games I could have told you that.
and I won't even get into using the Toronto Raptors as an example :fp:
here's how narrow minded and shortsighted you are: you've managed to get into an argument about advanced stats with a guy who has never been a huge proponent of them. i'm just open minded and realize that the more info you can get on something, the better you can be. this is true in all aspects of life.
here's the article in a nutshell. if you disagree, please say why:
1. premise--Numbers Can’t Replace What You See On The Court!
No one who is successful using basketball analytics would ever suggest that you don’t pay attention to what’s happening on the court. In fact, basketball analytics, even more so than the baseball variety, use film and what is actually happening on the court to gain a better understanding of what makes a team successful.
2. premise--Basketball Isn’t Baseball, Basketball Statistics Don’t Work The Same Way, So They Don’t Work In Basketball
This is true, basketball is not baseball. It’s also true that basketball statistics are not like baseball statistics.
That’s why the advanced statistics for basketball are different than they are for baseball. Basketball analytics are far more concerned with video, and what is happening on the court, while baseball advanced statistics tend to be more results related (what happened rather than why it happened and how it happened)
3. premise--Numbers Lie, Therefore You Cannot Trust Them
Absolutely, numbers lie. What advanced statistics do is try to sort through the lies of traditional statistics.
“Player A can score 20 points per game, therefore he is a good player.” That is a lie. What analytics do is find out how he’s scoring those points, how efficiently he’s doing it, and if he’s as good as we think he is.
4. premise--You Win “If You Play Defense, Rebound, And Share The Ball” – Larry Brown
This was really an amazing straw man moment from Larry Brown. I’m searching and searching but I cannot find an analytics guy who suggests that this isn’t true.
In fact, analytics give us a better sense of who is playing good defense and who is rebounding.
Prior to analytics, we always believed blocked shots and steals were great measures of how a player is defensively. Now we know, that sometimes it’s the centers who do not get a lot of blocked shots who are the best defenders. Players who are so good at positioning themselves and intimidating that players don’t even come into the paint. Players that are good defensively, but are resistant to leaving their man and leaving him open, the way many blocked shots happen.
5. premise--“The rocket science is this: acquire draft choices, get great players, have good contracts.” – Larry Brown
This is another straw man gem from Brown. Again, who is suggesting this isn’t true?
What these analytics do is help figure out how to best spend these draft choices, and what is a good contract.
i'm just open minded and realize that the more info you can get on something, the better you can be.
here is my final say on this matter:
I've left your one quote above because that quote and my response below pretty much sums up my feelings on this subject as it pertains to the NBA.
your quote above is just a false premise. there is a point where the information you are providing is meaningless and the time you take to provide said information is wasted time. haven't you ever had to read a report at work that was 20 pages long, but in reality the 1 page summary is all you needed to know? just because someone charts something doesn't mean it's valuable.
as I will now say for about the 3rd or 4th time, basketball is not a complicated game, just because some really smart guys with Harvard and Stanford advanced degrees tell you it is doesn't make it so. my 1000 or so games playing basketball, seeing well over 500 live games, and watching thousands of other games tells me differently.
let's just leave it as we agree to disagree.
(PS: good to know you are open minded on the NBA, but still cling to old adages in the NFL about running the football )
i'm just open minded and realize that the more info you can get on something, the better you can be.
here is my final say on this matter:
I've left your one quote above because that quote and my response below pretty much sums up my feelings on this subject as it pertains to the NBA.
your quote above is just a false premise. there is a point where the information you are providing is meaningless and the time you take to provide said information is wasted time. haven't you ever had to read a report at work that was 20 pages long, but in reality the 1 page summary is all you needed to know? just because someone charts something doesn't mean it's valuable.
as I will now say for about the 3rd or 4th time, basketball is not a complicated game, just because some really smart guys with Harvard and Stanford advanced degrees tell you it is doesn't make it so. my 1000 or so games playing basketball, seeing well over 500 live games, and watching thousands of other games tells me differently.
let's just leave it as we agree to disagree.
(PS: good to know you are open minded on the NBA, but still cling to old adages in the NFL about running the football )
where are you getting 20 pages from? these are stats like fg%. they take up a few spaces on a single sheet of paper. your 2nd paragraph, no offense, just typifies the dumbing down of this country to me. do you read usa today?
yes, i've seen countless games myself too. so has doug collins. yet doug collins continually allowed this team to take long 2's instead of coaching them to take step back beyond the arc and attempt a more efficient shot. doug's teams continually avoided driving to the basket and drawing a foul like it would have given them the plague. i like doug. i think he did a good overall job with the talent on this roster, but i think he could have benefited from utilizing some aspects of advanced stats.
the eagles offense was much more efficient when it had a better run pass ratio as opposed to throwing it 65% of the time with a qb like mike vick. that was never going to work and it's one of the reasons andy reid got himself fired.
Comments
dude, he traded harkless and a future 1 as well. and maybe he would have realized that vucevic could play (as I stated during the seaason last year) instead of turds like tony battie. :roll:
collins was the worst thing to happen to this franchise since Larry Brown. The similarities are scary
Not sure which of these posts is funnier
yes Larry Brown making an NBA Finals was just horrible, horrible I tell ya. can't believe we had to watch that crap :fp:
that's not beyond the realm of immaaaginnatioin
He did take Larry Hughes over Paul Pierce.
Tom O.
"I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
-The Writer
Meant Atlantic Div[/quote]
that's not beyond the realm of immaaaginnatioin[/quote]
With Bynum and Jrue this team could be playing Mia instead of Ind. Having the best Center in the Conf goes a long way.
and sell off every decent young talent/way to acqure talent...then left with years left on his contract once it was time to suffer the consequences.
'01 sixers = '93 phillies. fun years, but the epitome of lightning in a bottle. or fluke. same difference
larry brown is a whiny bitch. and a whore
yup he sure is, but he is one of the greatest coaches of all time and went to the playoffs 5 straight years with the Sixers (not exactly lightning in a bottle). I recall his (and Iverson's) era here fondly.
it's been established you won't bet on your own teams but i'd be willing to bet that art hinkie, his advanced degrees and advanced stats don't make the playoffs 5 years in a row here.
Making the nba playoffs isn't an accomplishment dude...more teams make it than don't. I have said a billion times over the last 10 years that the sixers would be better off missing the playoffs than making it. Sorry, but first round demolitions dont do much for me.
who is art hinkie? not only do you rip a hire you don't know anything about...you don't even know his name.
classic
5 years in a row for brown is the longest stretch since the early to mid 80s for this franchise. not so easy for the sixers.
art or sam, close enough. sue me for fucking up his 1st name.
all you said about vucevic last year was that, at first, he reminded you of spencer hawes. then you said it "looks like he can play" in january...this is when everyone else was saying the same thing. but the dude was awful down the stretch last season. awful. lavoy allen was outplaying him (he was getting vuc's minutes, not battie). and you did not say anything about him when he was traded.
the sixers took a chance for the first time in over a decade last year on bynum. it didn't work out. sometimes these things happen. if it worked, they'd have been in the mix for the division, and might still be playing right now. it was a chance with a big enough upside that they had to take. and the first round pick is lottery protected till '15. not a big deal.
you act like it was just another ho hum bad season for this team and fail to acknowledge that they took this huge risk last summer. the typical ed snyder run sixers would have certainly maintained the status quo after getting to within one game of the eastern conference finals. you have to roll the dice every once in a while in this league because it's so hard to get over the hump. it appears that this new ownership group isn't afraid to do so, as evidenced by the hinkie hire, and that is a glimmer of hope to actual fans of this team....lb was great for this franchise for about 5 years before the bottom fell out and billy king and him went about destroying the franchise. but comparing the 01 sixers to the 93 phils just makes no sense at all.
this is a good, rational, way of looking at what went down last year
http://www.libertyballers.com/2013/4/17 ... ug-collins
Unlike you, I don't pretend to know stuff about players with whom I'm unfamiliar. I didn't know Vucevic coming out of USC. Saw him play a handful of college games, but not enough to have an opinion on whether or not he'd be a good pro. After watching him play some (due to collins confusing rotations and hatred of playing or developing young players) I began to like him. He brought energy, was aggressive on the boards, and had nice touch both in (ability to finish with both hands) and out of the paint. I don't think it's fair to say he was being outplayed by anyone since the dumb ass coach never played him...instead giving his minutes to guys like tony battie. Doesn't matter how he was playing, they were better off giving a young player (and first round pick) minutes over veteran turds like battie...but as we would come to realize, this was collins' modus operandi (hello, royal ivey...always fun watching him at the end of tight games)
I was always skeptical of the bynum trade. Like I said when the trade went down, I was really looking forward to seeing him in 40 regular season games. When a franchise as bad as the sixers makes a big move, I think fans reaction is positive because they are doing something, regardless of whether or not these moves are the correct ones (trading iguodala, trading dalembert, trading for bynum, bringing collins in to coach/have say in personnel, etc).
it's ed snider dude. he's not in the pretzel business.
big difference between being willing to make moves and being smart about making moves. Snider is an easy scapegoat. What he failed to do was bring in proper people to run the team (like rod thorn, who you defended after I rightfully ripped that move). It is refreshing to see the new owners go with a guy like Hinkie, who is the franchises first real GM since the 80s. Any Sixer fan with any semblance of a clue should be ecstatic about this hire. It's the best thing to happen here since the moses malone trade.
2001 sixers = fluke. 1993 phillies = fluke. Both teams were built around one person (phils one main position player/pitcher...schilling and dykstra as their best players, neither were superstars). Neither team had any chance to sustain. The parallels are blatant.
You have been slurping the sixers for years (consistently stating how they're pointed in the right direction..., defending guys like rod thorn and evan turner, overvaluing the fluky series win vs the bulls, etc). Their record, lack of playoff success, and failure to construct any kind of plan speaks for itself. Blind optimism defines you around here...take your head out of the clouds macnow. Over the last 30 years they have been an abortion of a franchise. I love the Hinkie move...I think it was the best possible move they could have made. As long as they don't re-sign bynum or turner, this offseason is already a sweeping success because they finally have competence in the front office. For once, the future is realistically bright.
My offseason wish list...in order of preference
1 - Throw Bynum a deuce
2 - Trade Turner
3 - Trade down in draft...acquire future picks and expiring contracts
4 - Trade Hawes
5 - Sign Wright
6 - Stink it up next year and get a top 3 pick (shouldn't have to worry about the first part of that with the shitheap that collins, thorn, and dileo left here).
For the first time in a long time I'm excited about the sixers. They finally have direction. I wish there was a way to convince Harris to buy the Phillies.
it's clear you just didn't watch this team last year if you still think tony battie gained vucevik's playing time down the stretch last season. keep pretending like you did though. battie's minute's decreased as the season went on to the point where he barely played at all in april. i think he only appeared in the 2 games after they clinched in that entire final month of the season. so, i have absolutely no idea how you arrived at that conclusion other than to assume you are merely guessing.
vuc was still getting 15 minutes a game (only a couple less minutes than his max when he was playing well), despite shooting 34%. after the first couple months of the season, he was just terrible. it's clear why lavoy allen, not battie, was getting a little bit more playing time. that's what earned allen the playoff minutes when the rotation was shortened (batttie?....0 minutes all post season--again, no idea what you are talking about regarding him). tony battie
snider's primary job was to hire the right people. he spent a decade hiring the wrong people. easy or not--he's the correct scapegoat. ed snider was a horrible owner. only cared about keeping the arena not empty. thank god he is gone.
i spent 2 years enjoying that sixers run because they were heading in the right direction. it all came to a screeching halt due to the bynum injury. nobody overvalued the bulls win. in the post that you replied to, i even used that as a reference to how the ed snider-run sixers would have used that as an excuse to maintain the status quo rather than taking the franchise's first risk in decades on bynum.
the 93 phils were a one and done team. the 01 sixers were a 3 year gradual build and then were relatively decent for the next couple seasons. not comparable. and you think the 93 phils were only built around schilling and dykstra?.....what? that squad was the definition an entire team effort.
at least you and i agree on the hinkie hire.
det 13 mins
mil 10 mins
nj dnp
ind dnp
cle dnp
ind dnp
orl dnp
nj dnp
tor dnp
nj dnp
bos dnp
orl 1 minute
tor dnp
mia dnp
39 dnp's (or 0 minutes played) in a 66 game season for, one, tony battie. yeah, he was getting vuc's minutes down the stretch last year. you were watching this team? come on man.
i don't understand your argument. are you assuming that "stat guys" (and really i'm not one, i just understand that there is more value in obtaining as much info as possible, like brad stevens) are under the assumption that they can win an nba championship without a star player? if so, how did you arrive at that conclusion? because it doesn't make sense.
hinkie (the only reason you are posting in this thread now) came from an organization that carefully built their roster around highly efficient players and cleared enough cap space until they were ready to obtain a star player, like james harden last summer. they are now going to go after dwight howard.
1 - there is no argument. if you don't have a top 5 player in the NBA you aren't winning a title. that's been established over the past 22 years. don't need an advanced degree from Stanford to understand that (well maybe you do since some on here haven't grasped that concept yet, even with overwhelming factual evidence).
2 - for all the greatness of the Rockets and their so-called analytics they have won 1 playoff series in 6 years since their current analytics team took over. or as many as the 76ers have in the same timeframe.
now let's go with actual facts:
2005 - 51 wins
2006 - 34 wins
2007 - 52 wins
Advanced analytics Daryl Morey takes over in May 2007
2008 - 55 wins
2009 - 53 wins
2010 - 42 wins
2011 - 43 wins
2012 - 34 wins
2013 - 45 wins
so the analytics under this regime has taken a team with 52 wins in the year before taking over with a good 2 year crest but has since dropped their win totals from the mid 50s to a high of the mid 40s over the past 4 years with 1 playoff series win in said time, and only 1 playoff appearance in the past 4 years. so are the analytics really working for the rockets? where is the evidence?
and this is the system and people you want to emulate? hiring this guys assistant is a 'great' hire as was branded about here a few times?
funny how statistics guys love statistics...except when it comes to the most important statistic of all...wins and loses.
here is a list of teams who utilize analytics:
http://www.nbastuffer.com/component/opt ... epartment/
23 teams. including the teams in the finals http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnatio ... r-the-nba/
the spurs were actually one of the first teams to utilized analytics. they've won how many titles? them and the mavericks. mavs won the title 2 years ago. mike zarren's name (celtic's assistant gm/analytic guro) is always being mentioned whenever a gm spot opens up. he reportedly turned down the sixers last month. i bet you would have loved him at first since he came from the celtics...and then would be shocked to hear how he uses advanced stats like brad stevens.
and if there is no argument that a star player is needed to win an nba championship, what was your point in bringing it up as if you were arguing with someone? there is no argument from anyone, including "stats guys." your premise for starting an argument there is flawed.
the rockets spent the previous few years prior to the last one, dealing with unlucky injuries and clearing out cap space to put them in the position they are in now. they acquired a star player last year and are in a position to add another this summer. this is what a lot of people want the sixers to do in the next few years.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/90241 ... iting-team
you just brought up analytics and spurs titles in the same sentence so clearly you think it has played a role for them. i contend at best it has played a very minor role. so when Tim Duncan retires and the Spurs win a fucking title using said analytics without him give me a call.
still looking for proof that analytics leads to wins in the NBA.
as for the Sixers I guess 1 playoff appearance in the next 4 years will be good enough as long as they get cap space. beautiful. should be a heck of a run. can't fucking wait.
edit: my main contention is just because you can produce a stat for every little thing in basketball doesn't mean they have value to winning and losing. just because someone can produce a 20 page report doesn't mean all 20 pages have equal value. I think 99% of advanced stats in basketball help very little to winning and losing. it's a non-complicated game that people are trying to make much more complicated than it really is.
I'm not sure where this argument is going but the Spurs didn't use analytics when they tanked the season by not playing a healthy David Robinson to get Duncan ahead of the Sixers. I'm still bitter :evil:
Tom O.
"I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
-The Writer
23 teams utilize them, including the 2 teams in the finals and many of of the past champions over the last few years.
the celtics use them....and you used them in one of your examples when you were going back and forth with the other guy here a few weeks ago. having a superstar or two is obviously the best way to win a championship. nobody disputes that. but you have to build an efficient core around them and you have to know how to obtain them in the first place.
the nba is fucked up on so many levels with their cap restrictions and with the draft being an absolute total crap shoot that it's almost a requirement for teams to get creative in how they operate. things are not always black and white. and advanced stats is just another tool to help.
i came across this article by eskin's son (who seems to be the exact opposite kind of human being as his dad) ripping apart what larry brown said recently. it is worth a read:
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/0 ... analytics/
just read spike's article you posted and even the 2 links in said article.
article - larry brown basketball hall of famer or spike eskin (and the fixer) - hmm whose basketball opinion is more valuable....hard to say...hmmm....once again i'll go with the hall of famer and only person to coach both and NCAA and NBA Champion over that guy(s).
link 1 - wow 8 years to determine that good help defense is more valuable than not, don't leave david west wide open from 15 feet (could have told you that after seeing him play about 50 times at Xavier including a handful live in person) and 3 point shots are more valuable than 2. wow breaking fucking news there. just because NBA guys can't do the math on 2 pt shots vs. 3 pt shots doesn't mean I need a 20 page report on it. rick pitino figured out the 2 vs 3 pt shot in 1987.
link 2 - so david lee is a bad post defender. I imagine watching him play a bunch of games I could have told you that.
and I won't even get into using the Toronto Raptors as an example :fp:
thanks again.
here's how narrow minded and shortsighted you are: you've managed to get into an argument about advanced stats with a guy who has never been a huge proponent of them. i'm just open minded and realize that the more info you can get on something, the better you can be. this is true in all aspects of life.
here's the article in a nutshell. if you disagree, please say why:
1. premise--Numbers Can’t Replace What You See On The Court!
No one who is successful using basketball analytics would ever suggest that you don’t pay attention to what’s happening on the court. In fact, basketball analytics, even more so than the baseball variety, use film and what is actually happening on the court to gain a better understanding of what makes a team successful.
2. premise--Basketball Isn’t Baseball, Basketball Statistics Don’t Work The Same Way, So They Don’t Work In Basketball
This is true, basketball is not baseball. It’s also true that basketball statistics are not like baseball statistics.
That’s why the advanced statistics for basketball are different than they are for baseball. Basketball analytics are far more concerned with video, and what is happening on the court, while baseball advanced statistics tend to be more results related (what happened rather than why it happened and how it happened)
3. premise--Numbers Lie, Therefore You Cannot Trust Them
Absolutely, numbers lie. What advanced statistics do is try to sort through the lies of traditional statistics.
“Player A can score 20 points per game, therefore he is a good player.” That is a lie. What analytics do is find out how he’s scoring those points, how efficiently he’s doing it, and if he’s as good as we think he is.
4. premise--You Win “If You Play Defense, Rebound, And Share The Ball” – Larry Brown
This was really an amazing straw man moment from Larry Brown. I’m searching and searching but I cannot find an analytics guy who suggests that this isn’t true.
In fact, analytics give us a better sense of who is playing good defense and who is rebounding.
Prior to analytics, we always believed blocked shots and steals were great measures of how a player is defensively. Now we know, that sometimes it’s the centers who do not get a lot of blocked shots who are the best defenders. Players who are so good at positioning themselves and intimidating that players don’t even come into the paint. Players that are good defensively, but are resistant to leaving their man and leaving him open, the way many blocked shots happen.
5. premise--“The rocket science is this: acquire draft choices, get great players, have good contracts.” – Larry Brown
This is another straw man gem from Brown. Again, who is suggesting this isn’t true?
What these analytics do is help figure out how to best spend these draft choices, and what is a good contract.
here is my final say on this matter:
I've left your one quote above because that quote and my response below pretty much sums up my feelings on this subject as it pertains to the NBA.
your quote above is just a false premise. there is a point where the information you are providing is meaningless and the time you take to provide said information is wasted time. haven't you ever had to read a report at work that was 20 pages long, but in reality the 1 page summary is all you needed to know? just because someone charts something doesn't mean it's valuable.
as I will now say for about the 3rd or 4th time, basketball is not a complicated game, just because some really smart guys with Harvard and Stanford advanced degrees tell you it is doesn't make it so. my 1000 or so games playing basketball, seeing well over 500 live games, and watching thousands of other games tells me differently.
let's just leave it as we agree to disagree.
(PS: good to know you are open minded on the NBA, but still cling to old adages in the NFL about running the football
where are you getting 20 pages from? these are stats like fg%. they take up a few spaces on a single sheet of paper. your 2nd paragraph, no offense, just typifies the dumbing down of this country to me. do you read usa today?
yes, i've seen countless games myself too. so has doug collins. yet doug collins continually allowed this team to take long 2's instead of coaching them to take step back beyond the arc and attempt a more efficient shot. doug's teams continually avoided driving to the basket and drawing a foul like it would have given them the plague. i like doug. i think he did a good overall job with the talent on this roster, but i think he could have benefited from utilizing some aspects of advanced stats.
the eagles offense was much more efficient when it had a better run pass ratio as opposed to throwing it 65% of the time with a qb like mike vick. that was never going to work and it's one of the reasons andy reid got himself fired.