The Savior Fallacy
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
JUST-MING
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 43950

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:17 am    Post subject: The Savior Fallacy

Merge with Official Tank Thread

Derek Thompson wrote:
The Savior Fallacy:
Over-Betting on Star Players in Sports and Business


“BLESSED ARE THE MEEK: for they shall inherit the earth” is the third and most famous Beatitude in the Sermon on the Mount. Although the prophecy has a dubious track record throughout world history, its counsel has been inspirational lately in the arena of America’s secular religion: professional sports.

In the National Basketball Association, in particular, an astonishing number of teams this year—the Boston Celtics, the Philadelphia 76ers, the Utah Jazz, and more—stand accused of deliberately making their clubs as meek as possible. This strategy is called tanking, and its logic—to the extent that there is any—comes from the mysterious allure of the NBA draft.

In most professional sports leagues, including the NBA, the worst teams are first in line to snag the most-promising amateur players in the next draft. When the ripening crop of amateurs looks especially tantalizing (this year’s is projected to be historically good), multiple teams will suddenly compete to be so uncompetitive that, through sheer awfulness, they will be blessed to inherit the top pick. One anonymous general manager told ESPN the Magazine earlier this season, “Our team isn’t good enough to win,” so the best thing is “to lose a lot.”

In a way, there is a dark genius behind the tanking epidemic. In what other industry could you persuade your customers to root for the worst possible product? But tanking puzzles academics like David Berri, the author of the 2006 book The Wages of Wins and a widely read commentator on sports economics. “Tanking simply does not work,” he told me. Nearly 30 years of data tell a crystal-clear story: a truly awful team has never once metamorphosed into a championship squad through the draft. The last team to draft No. 1 and then win a championship (at any point thereafter) was the San Antonio Spurs, which lucked into the pick (Tim Duncan) back in 1997 when the team’s star center, David Robinson, missed all but six games the previous season because of injuries. The teams with the top three picks in any given draft are almost twice as likely to never make the playoffs within four years—the term of an NBA rookie contract, before the player reaches free agency—as they are to make it past the second round.

Why are teams and their fans drawn to a strategy that reliably leads to even deeper failure? The gospel of tanking is born from three big assumptions: that mediocrity is a trap; that scouting is a science; and that bad organizations are one savior away from being great. All three assumptions are common, not only to sports, but also to business and to life. And all three assumptions are typically wrong.

AT THE MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference in 2011, Kevin Pritchard, now the general manager of the Indiana Pacers, introduced the term treadmill of mediocrity. It captured the widespread feeling that average teams are doomed to walk in place for eternity with no hope of advancement: they lack the talent to contend, yet never get the acclaimed top-of-the-draft picks that could meaningfully improve their rosters. Fear of this purgatory has spooked teams so much that Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, has publicly said he would rather his team be a bottom-feeder—blowing up a merely average team to get there—than try to make do with a middling roster.

Fans, too, seem particularly contemptuous of teams that lose half their games. “From the fan’s perspective, nothing is more frustrating than being average,” Berri says, “because being mediocre gives fans the greatest sense of uncertainty: one day they’re great, and another day they stink.” Yet, as Berri’s analysis shows, the treadmill metaphor turns out to be wrong: Mediocre teams don’t necessarily stay mediocre. Within two years, they’re three times more likely to become elite (winning at least two-thirds of their games) than the lousy squads that locked up the top picks. Developing and effectively deploying current players, making smart trades and judiciously signing free agents, finding good players later in the draft—these patient, sometimes incremental moves appear to work better than tearing things down to try to land a hyped-up superhero in the draft.

Although the NBA has seen its share of can’t-miss stars who badly missed, the allure of the draft is that it offers a fresh start. It promises to deliver fans a savior—even when the odds of salvation are vanishingly small. Just the remote possibility of success after a string of losses “turns people into wild gamblers,” says Megan McArdle, the author of a new book about failure, The Up Side of Down (and my former editor). Mired in mediocrity, fans thirst for a story that promises a small chance of success (we’ll draft a superstar and win a championship!) while ignoring the overwhelmingly probable outcome (actually, no, we won’t).

Losing to win might make sense if scooping up superstar players while they’re young and cheap could be reduced to a science. But even in the age of moneyball analytics, forecasting which teenager will grow up to be the next LeBron James is guesswork. Research into the NFL by the business scholars Cade Massey and Richard Thaler suggests that professional teams routinely overvalue early draft picks, principally because of the most human bias of all: overconfidence. Like most people, general managers think they’re better at predicting the future than they are—if only they can get the college player they want, they know they’ll have a star. More information doesn’t make them better predictors; it can even make them worse. “The more information teams acquire about players, the more overconfident they will feel about their ability to make fine distinctions,” Massey and Thaler write. This suggests that the development of advanced analytics might be quietly driving the emergence of tanking.

The problem with more information is that it’s worthless if you don’t know how to use it—and many teams clearly don’t. For example, a player who appears in the Final Four of the men’s-college-basketball tournament in the same year he is to be drafted can expect to be picked 12 spots earlier, on average, than comparable players on less accomplished teams. This is strange, because Final Four appearances have no observable effect on a player’s career performance. And the Final Four bonus disappears if the athlete returns to school and doesn’t make the semifinals again. Scouts and general managers routinely give too much weight to an athlete’s last impression.

DRAFTING STARS into struggling franchises isn’t just a game for professional sports clubs. It’s the job of beleaguered corporate boards as well. Many companies have developed an abiding faith in their ability to pluck superstar talent from a pool of outsiders. From the early ’80s to the late ’90s, among the largest 850 U.S. companies, the share of new CEOs coming from outside the company more than quadrupled, to 33 percent, according to Rakesh Khurana, a Harvard Business School professor and the author of a 2002 article in the Harvard Business Review titled “The Curse of the Superstar CEO.”

When a company flounders, Khurana writes, directors feel pressured to fire the incumbent CEO and hire a savior, rather than soberly examining the fundamentals depressing the company’s fortunes. Take Kodak, whose early-1990s slide led to the heralded appointment of George Fisher, then the CEO of Motorola. Fisher failed to turn around a company being subsumed by the digital-photography wave, and ultimately stepped down a year before his contract was up. Kodak’s precipitous slide toward irrelevance continued, and it filed for bankruptcy in 2012. Large companies’ fortunes are “varied, highly nuanced, almost frighteningly complex, and certainly beyond the power of even the most charismatic leader,” Khurana writes. It’s like Warren Buffett once observed: when you bring good executives into a bad company, it’s the reputation of the company that stays intact.

Turnarounds aren’t a one-man job in the NBA, either. Bad teams aren’t one great player away from greatness. They’re one great player away from mediocrity. Almost every championship team going back three decades had not one but three above-average starters. To amend Buffett’s construction: when you bring a successful college player onto a bad pro team, it’s the reputation of the team that stays intact.

In basketball and in business, big changes are sometimes warranted. But too often, splashy moves are made because they’re splashy—and because making one big bet is easier than making lots of small, hard decisions. The big lie about tanking is that it’s a prudent long-term strategy, when in fact it’s just another get-rich-quick scheme. It invites fans to see spectacular failure as a kind of trampoline that will catch teams at their nadir and launch them into the stratosphere. The truth is boring and simple. In the short term, average teams are more likely to become good, because they’re already closer to being good. The rampant fear in the NBA that mediocrity is a perpetual purgatory elides that crucial detail about purgatory: it’s closer to heaven than the alternative.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Chronicle
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 21 Jul 2012
Posts: 31930
Location: Manhattan

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:19 am    Post subject:

This better be the last and only damn season the Lakers ever tank.

I really think they need to implement that wheel idea where your draft position is already known.
_________________
Kobe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Theseus
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 13855

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:32 am    Post subject:

The Lakers aren't going to be great forever, especially with the CBA being what it is, and who knows what future CBAs lie in store for us. With injuries being a constant variable season to season, game to game, its hard to imagine the Lakers being constantly in playoff contention.

I don't think we need a star so much as we need real depth. We are a couple players away from being a contender.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:41 am    Post subject:

That is why I have to laugh when posters here admire the job that Philly and Boston are doing. They won't be competing for a title anytime soon.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38749

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:42 am    Post subject:

Chronicle wrote:
This better be the last and only damn season the Lakers ever tank.

I really think they need to implement that wheel idea where your draft position is already known.


Taking into the account the new CBA, the NBA is going to resemble more like MLB or the NFL where its going to be tough to repeat, and lots of parity.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 9:48 am    Post subject:

This strikes me as something of a strawman argument. Sure, one great player will not lift a team past mediocrity. To the extent that he is attacking that strawman, he's absolutely right.

However, the more nuanced position (which is not a strawman) is that it is far easier and faster to build around a superstar than to assemble a successful ensemble cast. The team that drafts Embiid or Wiggins has a potential franchise player, and they can build around him. True, Embiid or Wiggins could turn out to be the next Kyrie Irving or, heaven forbid, Greg Oden or Kwame Brown. Just the same, in the economic structure of the NBA, asset acquisition is difficult. Look how many years Morey spent swapping assets in Houston before he finally managed to assemble the pieces to make the Rockets a credible, albeit not powerful, contender.

Tanking for a top pick won't help if your front office is unable to capitalize on a successful pick. It won't be a cure all. But, at least with respect to the NBA, I think the author is overstating his case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:09 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
This strikes me as something of a strawman argument. Sure, one great player will not lift a team past mediocrity. To the extent that he is attacking that strawman, he's absolutely right.

However, the more nuanced position (which is not a strawman) is that it is far easier and faster to build around a superstar than to assemble a successful ensemble cast. The team that drafts Embiid or Wiggins has a potential franchise player, and they can build around him. True, Embiid or Wiggins could turn out to be the next Kyrie Irving or, heaven forbid, Greg Oden or Kwame Brown. Just the same, in the economic structure of the NBA, asset acquisition is difficult. Look how many years Morey spent swapping assets in Houston before he finally managed to assemble the pieces to make the Rockets a credible, albeit not powerful, contender.

Tanking for a top pick won't help if your front office is unable to capitalize on a successful pick. It won't be a cure all. But, at least with respect to the NBA, I think the author is overstating his case.


Good points, but I think tanking as a strategy isn't something that has been very successful at winning titles.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tony smith
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 1960
Location: West LA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:10 am    Post subject:

I feel like I just turned a corner and came face to face with The Lockness Monster!

Is this real? Not just a comment, but a WHOLE THREAD by Just-Ming?!

How long will it last before he deletes it?!

Now that I've posted in it, when that eventuality happens, will I cease to exist as well?

What is the sound of a poster commenting on a thread if nobody is there to read it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Jim99187
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 22138

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:16 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
That is why I have to laugh when posters here admire the job that Philly and Boston are doing. They won't be competing for a title anytime soon.


not ever team competes for Championship.

the goal of most of the teams like bucks, 76ers, magic is to put a product that costs them minimum and makes them most of the profit.

there was an article on this few years back. its not about championship or bust for each team
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:19 am    Post subject:

Then that makes the 76ers and Celtics even more pathetic, they waste 2 or 3 seasons to be mediocre?
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:29 am    Post subject:

Tanking has side effects. There's an old adage that the only thing losing teaches is how to lose, and that is difficult to wipe out of your culture. So you end up with a lot of turnover and lack of stability. This is why you tend to see the same teams in the lottery year after year.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Jim99187
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 22138

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:34 am    Post subject:

24 wrote:
Tanking has side effects. There's an old adage that the only thing losing teaches is how to lose, and that is difficult to wipe out of your culture. So you end up with a lot of turnover and lack of stability. This is why you tend to see the same teams in the lottery year after year.


right.

thats why we will again see Cavs in the lotto.

there was also another article where Celtics were tanking in Antonie Walkers 1st yr. he picked up so many bad habits that he just couldn't shed them when the time came for winning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:59 am    Post subject:

24 wrote:
Tanking has side effects. There's an old adage that the only thing losing teaches is how to lose, and that is difficult to wipe out of your culture. So you end up with a lot of turnover and lack of stability. This is why you tend to see the same teams in the lottery year after year.


I agree, and that is why I think this is the perfect season for the Lakers to have such a horrible one. First the lottery is well stocked, and secondly, I think we have a high turnover of personnel. Many of those who are losing won't be returning.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:15 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
This strikes me as something of a strawman argument. Sure, one great player will not lift a team past mediocrity. To the extent that he is attacking that strawman, he's absolutely right.

However, the more nuanced position (which is not a strawman) is that it is far easier and faster to build around a superstar than to assemble a successful ensemble cast. The team that drafts Embiid or Wiggins has a potential franchise player, and they can build around him. True, Embiid or Wiggins could turn out to be the next Kyrie Irving or, heaven forbid, Greg Oden or Kwame Brown. Just the same, in the economic structure of the NBA, asset acquisition is difficult. Look how many years Morey spent swapping assets in Houston before he finally managed to assemble the pieces to make the Rockets a credible, albeit not powerful, contender.

Tanking for a top pick won't help if your front office is unable to capitalize on a successful pick. It won't be a cure all. But, at least with respect to the NBA, I think the author is overstating his case.



I thought it was weak logic. I don't think anyone would say, "Hey, lousy team, get a great player and your work is done -- automatic ring -- within one year."

And the author of the piece chose really narrow parameters -- lousy overall team; #1 overall pick; instant ring -- to carefully create the data to "prove" his point. (If you bent over backwards like this to choose you data you could "prove" no strategy ever works.)

But certainly lots of championship teams came from lousy squads build on the foundation of a great high draft pick -- Jordan in Chicago and Wade in Miami come to mind.

The Rockets were a terrible team, got Sampson and Hakeem in the draft, and landed in the finals. Ditto Shaq in Orlando and Lebron in Cleveland.

The question isn't whether tanking is an instant, easy, sure path to success. It's whether tanking, given a team's particular circumstances, is a reasonable strategy.


Last edited by activeverb on Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:18 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ShadyG
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2002
Posts: 3100
Location: Philadelphia, PA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:17 am    Post subject:

Some of the points are valid, but many of the arguments made in this article are illogical. First of all, most teams sucking after getting the top pick continue to suck because they were the worst team in the league the year before. That's not tanking. Tanking is pretending to be the worst team in the league when you're actually ok, so that whole argument doesn't make sense.

Second -- and here we get to the concept of "nuance" that Aeneas brought up -- tanking doesn't always get a team the #1 pick. Sometimes it just gets you a pick that's better than you would have had otherwise, which then becomes a piece of a larger puzzle that might have been incomplete. Where would the Celtics have been had they not fallen to the #5 pick in '07? Miami with #5 in '03? Hell, would the Lakers have won in '09 without that #10 pick in '05? Maybe, but I can't be sure. Just moving up a single pick can make the difference given the right group of incoming players and a good scouting team.
_________________
Nerd rock in progress.
http://briangraymusic.com/?toptab=1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LakerCity
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Dec 2013
Posts: 2496

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:19 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
This strikes me as something of a strawman argument. Sure, one great player will not lift a team past mediocrity. To the extent that he is attacking that strawman, he's absolutely right.

However, the more nuanced position (which is not a strawman) is that it is far easier and faster to build around a superstar than to assemble a successful ensemble cast. The team that drafts Embiid or Wiggins has a potential franchise player, and they can build around him. True, Embiid or Wiggins could turn out to be the next Kyrie Irving or, heaven forbid, Greg Oden or Kwame Brown. Just the same, in the economic structure of the NBA, asset acquisition is difficult. Look how many years Morey spent swapping assets in Houston before he finally managed to assemble the pieces to make the Rockets a credible, albeit not powerful, contender.

Tanking for a top pick won't help if your front office is unable to capitalize on a successful pick. It won't be a cure all. But, at least with respect to the NBA, I think the author is overstating his case.



I thought it was weak logic. I don't think anyone would say, "Hey, lousy team, get a great player and your work is done -- automatic ring -- within one year."

And the author of the piece chose really narrow parameters -- lousy overall team; #1 overall parameters; instant ring -- to carefully create the data to "prove" his point. (I think if you bent over backwards like this to choose you data you could "prove" no strategy ever works.)

But certainly lots of championship teams came from lousy squads build on the foundation of a great high draft pick -- Jordan in Chicago, Wade in Miami.

The Rockets were a terrible team, got Sampson and Hakeem in the draft, and landed in the finals. Ditto Shaq in Orlando and Lebron in Cleveland.


Took the Bulls 7 years after getting MJ, took Houston 10 years after getting Hakeem. Laker fans of today aren't that patient. And there aren't any players around who can have that immediate impact like Shaq or Bron
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerCity
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Dec 2013
Posts: 2496

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:20 am    Post subject:

ShadyG wrote:
Some of the points are valid, but many of the arguments made in this article are illogical. First of all, most teams sucking after getting the top pick continue to suck because they were the worst team in the league the year before. That's not tanking. Tanking is pretending to be the worst team in the league when you're actually ok, so that whole argument doesn't make sense.

Second -- and here we get to the concept of "nuance" that Aeneas brought up -- tanking doesn't always get a team the #1 pick. Sometimes it just gets you a pick that's better than you would have had otherwise, which then becomes a piece of a larger puzzle that might have been incomplete. Where would the Celtics have been had they not fallen to the #5 pick in '07? Miami with #5 in '03? Hell, would the Lakers have won in '09 without that #10 pick in '05? Maybe, but I can't be sure. Just moving up a single pick can make the difference given the right group of incoming players and a good scouting team.


yeah
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:24 am    Post subject:

ShadyG wrote:
Tanking is pretending to be the worst team in the league when you're actually ok, so that whole argument doesn't make sense.


I don't think many people would define tanking that way. To me, tanking simply means that you don't think your current team has much of a chance now or in the future; so you trade your best players for picks or young players with potential; and you field a team that isn't very good.

So it's a rebuilding strategy - sacrifice your best players today for draft picks and prospects you hope will pan out tomorrow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:31 am    Post subject:

LakerCity wrote:

Took the Bulls 7 years after getting MJ, took Houston 10 years after getting Hakeem. Laker fans of today aren't that patient. And there aren't any players around who can have that immediate impact like Shaq or Bron


Again, I think you are using an unrealistic criteria - instant ring. Houston went from being a crappy team to the finals in Hakeem's second season -- I think that is a great successful rebuilding.

But I do agree that Lakers fans probably have unrealistic criteria because we've had so much success. No matter what strategy we pursue, I'd say the odds of us winning ring in the next seven years are small.

The question to me isn't how fast or whether you win a ring -- it's how fast you build a truly competitive team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
postandpivot
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Sep 2003
Posts: 36822

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:41 am    Post subject:

Chronicle wrote:
This better be the last and only damn season the Lakers ever tank.

I really think they need to implement that wheel idea where your draft position is already known.
the lakers did not and have not intentionally tanked.


we were so injured to the point me and you could've walked into staples with floor seats in kobe jersey's and they would've asked us "hey guys, you wanna run?"

thats how bad it got and still is. thats not tanking.

tanking is philly. trade away everyone worth a darn and lose because of it.
the bucks. play at half speed most games and lose because of it.

cavs play hard for 2.5 qtrs and quit the rest to make darn sure you lose these games.

the reason these sorry teams can do this to their fans. is because their fans have very low expectations.

if Dan gilbert ends up with wiggins. everyone in cleveland will show up to the games next season with wiggins jersey's. and crown him the next LBJ.
if they mess around and win 48 games and lose in the first rd. those fans wont cry they will be happy.

same goes for philly, bucks, etc.

if the lakers land wiggins next year. there wont be anyone crowning him the next kobe. we will walk into staples wondering what we have on our hands. nitpicking every little thing he does wrong not carrying about what he does right. and if we get into the offs and get bounced in the 2nd round .we will be and so will kobe and so will management.

See the difference?

one lone star IS enough for these sorry teams to come out and support. thats not the case for the lakers.


now as to will we lose this bad ever again? yes, if we get this hurt again. and yes if we win 5 titles all bunched together and we dont switch out our roster completely cause we're afraid to mess with that championship chemistry. yes we will end up aging ourselves out of contention. and we will go thru yet another bad season or 3 before we get back. but who cares if they keep winning 3 in a row, 2 in a row??? i wont care.. will you?
_________________
LAL4K3RS wrote: He(Kobe) is the white haired kung fu master that you realize is older than dirt but can still kick your arse when in a sitting position drinking a nice herbal tea.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerCity
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Dec 2013
Posts: 2496

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:47 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
LakerCity wrote:

Took the Bulls 7 years after getting MJ, took Houston 10 years after getting Hakeem. Laker fans of today aren't that patient. And there aren't any players around who can have that immediate impact like Shaq or Bron


Again, I think you are using an unrealistic criteria - instant ring. Houston went from being a crappy team to the finals in Hakeem's second season -- I think that is a great successful rebuilding.

But I do agree that Lakers fans probably have unrealistic criteria because we've had so much success. No matter what strategy we pursue, I'd say the odds of us winning ring in the next seven years are small.

The question to me isn't how fast or whether you win a ring -- it's how fast you build a truly competitive team.


Good points
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 11:48 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
Good points, but I think tanking as a strategy isn't something that has been very successful at winning titles.


It's had mixed results, for sure. The Spurs have four titles, five trips to the Finals, and the chance to add to those numbers before Duncan retires. The Sonics are doing pretty well with Durant. Wade worked out pretty well for the Heat. But a lot of other teams got nowhere at all with it.

As I said, it's not a cure all. But it's a lot easier when you have someone to build around, and it's hard for small market teams to get that guy through any means other than the draft.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
magicdays
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Dec 2011
Posts: 1907

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:12 pm    Post subject:

All of these rationalizations to shoot down this posted article are rationalizations anyone can also conjure up regarding an alternative strategy--building around a free agent. The Lakers have plenty of examples of key acquisitions via free agency that worked for them. There are always plenty of counter-examples anyone can conjure up to lay claim to their side of the argument. However, anecdotes cannot deny the accumulated data. If one wants to argue against the data they present, then one needs to present a similarly large sample of counter data.

There are two aspects to tanking I do not care for:
1) The data that shows getting the savior draft pick rarely works.
2) The psychological problems that tanking presents to a team and how it changes their culture and expectations.

And btw, even if the Lakers did not intend to tank initially, it is clear to me that once the FO decided to ride out MDA--they were in full tank mode.
_________________
Ahhhh, those were the days...time for a new beginning!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
postandpivot
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Sep 2003
Posts: 36822

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:47 pm    Post subject:

magicdays wrote:
All of these rationalizations to shoot down this posted article are rationalizations anyone can also conjure up regarding an alternative strategy--building around a free agent. The Lakers have plenty of examples of key acquisitions via free agency that worked for them. There are always plenty of counter-examples anyone can conjure up to lay claim to their side of the argument. However, anecdotes cannot deny the accumulated data. If one wants to argue against the data they present, then one needs to present a similarly large sample of counter data.

There are two aspects to tanking I do not care for:
1) The data that shows getting the savior draft pick rarely works.
2) The psychological problems that tanking presents to a team and how it changes their culture and expectations.

And btw, even if the Lakers did not intend to tank initially, it is clear to me that once the FO decided to ride out MDA--they were in full tank mode.




and this is whats current. this isnt even showing the full year.

Quote:
Los Angeles Lakers Current Injury report

Kent Bazemore
will miss the remainder of the season Out to undergo right foot surgery

Kobe Bryant
will miss the remainder of the season Out left tibial plateau fracture

Pau Gasol
is expected to miss the remainder of the season Out vertigo

Xavier Henry
is expected to miss the remainder of the season Out to undergo left wrist surgery/right knee surgery

Chris Kaman is doubtful for Friday's game against Golden State Doubtful sore right calf

Steve Nash is expected to miss the remainder of the season Out nerve irritation in lower back/hamstrings




i had to post this because i just cant get it laker fans. i just cant understand how you guys make a lot of logical points then all of the logic flies out of the window when you speak about why have been losing so many games.

Logic folks. how many injuries have we had this year?

Compare that to how many injuries every other team has had. not FAKE injuries to rest guys or to intentionally tank. but legit INJURIES?

now compare our injuries from this season to any other season in laker history. now show us where the injury frequency of this season is even close to the frequency of another laker season. i will go on a limb and say its not even close. i mean gary Vittie said it himself. and that was last year's injury bugged season. this season is worse then last year.

but some how , some way its MDA or the FO's fault. thats just insane to me.

the tank mode came in the moment the lakers realized they are out of the hunt for the playoffs and to make matters worse guys keep getting hurt. 2 guys back, 2 guys out, 1 guy back 1 guy out, 2 guys back, 2 guys out.

we have a dleague pg pulling major mins for us. what does that tell you?
_________________
LAL4K3RS wrote: He(Kobe) is the white haired kung fu master that you realize is older than dirt but can still kick your arse when in a sitting position drinking a nice herbal tea.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 2:16 pm    Post subject:

Worth noting that of the last 40 first overall picks, 5 won at least one title with the team that drafted them.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB