View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
laker4life Star Player
Joined: 26 Nov 2001 Posts: 7317
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
venturalakersfan wrote: | deal wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | Typical ESPN garbage bandwagon rankings. I have no idea why people turn to that rag for actualy NBA content. The only decent place to get good information is Basketball Insiders. |
I don't think out FO would rank high on anyone's board simply because it would be considered unproven without the old man. When we're back on track, the proof will be in the pudding...
I'm cool with the ranking and so should the FO for now...it should serve as fuel.. |
The whole process of their continual subjective "rankings" is just to draw suckers in. And this thread is proof it works. Their rankings mean nothing. |
If you are loyal supporter for the FO and want to absolve the FO of any culpability from the current situation of this team, I can see people being critical of this ranking and label it as being "subjective".
Whether it is subjective or not is also a matter of opinion and debate. I think ESPN did it to initiate conversation. I think calling people simply "suckers" for agreeing with the ranking is probably an example. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144432 Location: The Gold Coast
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again, you lack the ability to read what I posted and comment on that. I never mentioned or discussed the Laker FO or its ranking. Just how ESPN consistently produces garbage journalism. Entertainment is all they are about. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
laker4life Star Player
Joined: 26 Nov 2001 Posts: 7317
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
venturalakersfan wrote: | Again, you lack the ability to read what I posted and comment on that. I never mentioned or discussed the Laker FO or its ranking. Just how ESPN consistently produces garbage journalism. Entertainment is all they are about. |
I have read it.
I disagree that ESPN consistently produces "garbage journalism". There are some outstanding and excellent writers there who take the time to do their research and analysis. When Henry Abbott came out with anti Kobe article, I thought that his analysis was misplaced. However, some people agreed with him. There is nothing wrong with that.
It is simple to call it garbage when they elect to take a position which you diametrically oppose. (ie. their negative perspective of the Laker FO) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tony Anapolis Star Player
Joined: 05 Jan 2015 Posts: 3331
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What got them these rankings was not trading Pau Gasol (at any point after 2010 finals), and the Nash trade. Bynum, Sasha, Farmar are picks that I like to this day. They were great complimentary players to the cause.
People forget Farmar made KG look foolish a few times in the 2010 NBA Finals. Sasha was lethal when he was on. Ariza trade, S. Brown trade, all solid moves. CP3 deal anyone.
I have been hard on Mitch for the Nash trade, because I honestly hated it from the very beginning. The track record speaks for itself, you got to give Mitch a pass on the Nash trade.
Now the D'Antoni hiring was desperation, and in my eyes was pathetic and insulting to me as a Lakers fan.
I know it's a mixed bag? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kobe>Lebron Star Player
Joined: 20 Aug 2002 Posts: 3571
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
28 seems a bit generous. _________________ "I was laying myself on the line by saying, if this doesn't work in three to four years, if we're not back on the top then I will step down because that means I have failed,"
Jim Buss (2013) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LakerLogic Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Mar 2005 Posts: 17886
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And BS is the worst coach in the league, by far. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
laker4life Star Player
Joined: 26 Nov 2001 Posts: 7317
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
venturalakersfan wrote: | deal wrote: | venturalakersfan wrote: | Typical ESPN garbage bandwagon rankings. I have no idea why people turn to that rag for actualy NBA content. The only decent place to get good information is Basketball Insiders. |
I don't think out FO would rank high on anyone's board simply because it would be considered unproven without the old man. When we're back on track, the proof will be in the pudding...
I'm cool with the ranking and so should the FO for now...it should serve as fuel.. |
The whole process of their continual subjective "rankings" is just to draw suckers in. And this thread is proof it works. Their rankings mean nothing. |
If you want to be critical of this article then you also should be critical of its conclusion as it relates to the top 5 FO according to ESPN.
I think that a majority of people would conclude that San Antonio is number 1. As for the others, you can make an argument. The Mavs and Heats have done a fairly impressive job over the last few years.
I am surprised with the Rockets and Warriors.
ESPN conducted this survey by involving a panel of over 200 people. They did not just take one person who strictly hates the Lakers FO or one person who will defends the Laker FO religiously.
Last year, the Lakers FO was ranked 16. It is now 28th. This coincides with our record. There is nothing wrong with it. When you have the 4th worse record, you cannot expect the Laker FO to be ranked in the top 10.
At the end of the day, the past few years have simply not been good for the Lakers FO and it still remains to be seen that it will get better.
Last edited by laker4life on Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LakerLogic Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Mar 2005 Posts: 17886
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perception matters when it comes to FA signings. The perception around the league: the Lakers FO is terrible. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Telleris Star Player
Joined: 28 May 2013 Posts: 2371
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This rank wasn't what most people think of as front office (the gm/decision maker), this was a cumulative of front office, coach and owner
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12555148/2015-front-office-rankings-top-executives
This is just the GM (and in some cases, owners, coaches and Jerry West), but it's not much better _________________ I believe everything the media tells me except for anything for which I have direct personal knowledge, which they always get wrong |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LarryCoon Site Staff
Joined: 11 Aug 2002 Posts: 11264
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well....I'm one of the voters, and I'm also one of the few (even amongst the voters) who has been inside around half the front offices in the league and/or knows all the people involved. Not to try to toot my own horn here -- I'm just saying that I think I have a better basis for my opinion than most.
I talked about this concept pretty extensively with the editor (Royce Webb) who's in charge of it last year, and I had (and still have) a number of concerns. One is that the WOC methodology can be effective in attenuating bias (which it does, and which has been mentioned in this thread), but really is only as good as the underlying wisdom, and I'm not sure how much of that really exists among the voters here. It's one thing, for example, to have 200 NBA experts vote on NBARank -- a player's basketball ability is in everyone's wheelhouse, and nothing is hidden. But being an expert on basketball doesn't necessarily make one an expert in how to run an NBA team, so what expertise is their ranking based on? Plus most teams are pretty secretive (I've told the story before about being in the Spurs front office and even having lunch with their analytics guy, and having no clue that they had signed a contract with SportsVU that same morning), so how is one possibly able to rank a front office about which they don't know many of the important details?
This leaves the voters basing the rankings on results, with a natural recency bias -- if they're good today they get ranked higher; if they're bad today they get ranked lower. I see signs of this bias in a lot of these rankings.
Another factor is that some of the teams are a work in progress, which makes them harder to assess. What happens if Philly springs into contention in a couple years? Sam's plan will be vindicated, and he will shoot up in the rankings. But that plan is in place today -- it's just a work in progress. Again, it goes to the recency bias, once the results come, the ranking will follow. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
^ What was the relative time frame considered for the rankings? Is it a year-to-year basis? 5 year window? Within a +/- 5 years, Lakers have won 2 championships but also been out of the playoffs 2 years too. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
danzag Franchise Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 Posts: 22244 Location: Brazil
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | ^ What was the relative time frame considered for the rankings? Is it a year-to-year basis? 5 year window? Within a +/- 5 years, Lakers have won 2 championships but also been out of the playoffs 2 years too. |
That's what I was about to ask.
If the time frame is just one year than this ranking has no reason to exist. It will, more or less, repeat the standings. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dennis_D LG Contributor
Joined: 12 Apr 2001 Posts: 2017 Location: North Dallas
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
laker4life wrote: | If you want to be critical of this article then you also should be critical of its conclusion as it relates to the top 5 FO according to ESPN.
I think that a majority of people would conclude that San Antonio is number 1. As for the others, you can make an argument. The Mavs and Heats have done a fairly impressive job over the last few years. |
The Mavs got lucky in 2011, otherwise they have been the quintessential team that's good enough to make the playoffs but not good enough to compete for a championship.
Miami got their stars because LeBron decided to party in South Beach. Last off-season once LeBron bolted, did Miami do the smart thing and say that their championship window was closed and it was time to rebuild? NOOOOO!!! They re-signed the 30 year old fragile Chris Bosh to a 5 year / $118M contract. They'll make the playoffs for the foreseeable future because they play in the Leastern conference, but they are a veteran sub-.500 team which is were you never want to be.
laker4life wrote: | Last year, the Lakers FO was ranked 16. It is now 28th. This coincides with our record. There is nothing wrong with it. |
There's a lot wrong with that. The Lakers had a strong off-season last season by:
* Drafting Clarkson, the steal of the draft
* Drafting Randle, who looked like one of the top picks in the draft until he was injured
* Getting Lin and a #1 from Houston for nothing
* Signing Ed Davis for a song
The only way you can justify dropping the Lakers from 16th to 28th is if you look strictly at this season's record. If you do that, then San Antonio drops out of the top 5. _________________ <-- My avatar is Margaret Nolan from one of the Carry On films. She was the girl who got painted gold in "Goldfinger". Thanks to CaliRyderX for identifying her. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
laker4life Star Player
Joined: 26 Nov 2001 Posts: 7317
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dennis_D wrote: | .
laker4life wrote: | Last year, the Lakers FO was ranked 16. It is now 28th. This coincides with our record. There is nothing wrong with it. |
There's a lot wrong with that. The Lakers had a strong off-season last season by:
* Drafting Clarkson, the steal of the draft
* Drafting Randle, who looked like one of the top picks in the draft until he was injured
* Getting Lin and a #1 from Houston for nothing
* Signing Ed Davis for a song
The only way you can justify dropping the Lakers from 16th to 28th is if you look strictly at this season's record. If you do that, then San Antonio drops out of the top 5. |
Spurs were in the finals for last 2 years so the regular season will not count as much. In fact because they concluded the Spurs as no. 1 should show that this ranking is fairly comprehensive and they do not strictly considered the records.
As was mentioned before, there are over 200 writers involved, record is probably a huge factor but not everything. I only make the point that we have the 4th worse record and it remains to be seen at this moment our FO will turn it around. I understand that in the past, Kupchak has done it. However, it still is a question that remains to be answer.
This ranking is an ongoing process. These writers or self proclaimed experts have their reasoning.
In a few years, we might be in the top 10. However, based upon perception and our records, we are 28th.
I simply do not classify this ranking as "garbage". |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Don Draper Retired Number
Joined: 21 Feb 2008 Posts: 28422 Location: LA --> Bay Area
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
LarryCoon wrote: | Well....I'm one of the voters, and I'm also one of the few (even amongst the voters) who has been inside around half the front offices in the league and/or knows all the people involved. Not to try to toot my own horn here -- I'm just saying that I think I have a better basis for my opinion than most.
I talked about this concept pretty extensively with the editor (Royce Webb) who's in charge of it last year, and I had (and still have) a number of concerns. One is that the WOC methodology can be effective in attenuating bias (which it does, and which has been mentioned in this thread), but really is only as good as the underlying wisdom, and I'm not sure how much of that really exists among the voters here. It's one thing, for example, to have 200 NBA experts vote on NBARank -- a player's basketball ability is in everyone's wheelhouse, and nothing is hidden. But being an expert on basketball doesn't necessarily make one an expert in how to run an NBA team, so what expertise is their ranking based on? Plus most teams are pretty secretive (I've told the story before about being in the Spurs front office and even having lunch with their analytics guy, and having no clue that they had signed a contract with SportsVU that same morning), so how is one possibly able to rank a front office about which they don't know many of the important details?
This leaves the voters basing the rankings on results, with a natural recency bias -- if they're good today they get ranked higher; if they're bad today they get ranked lower. I see signs of this bias in a lot of these rankings.
Another factor is that some of the teams are a work in progress, which makes them harder to assess. What happens if Philly springs into contention in a couple years? Sam's plan will be vindicated, and he will shoot up in the rankings. But that plan is in place today -- it's just a work in progress. Again, it goes to the recency bias, once the results come, the ranking will follow. |
A lot of similar complaints are made about college ranks. If you go by different forms of analysis than the traditional vote done by department heads (talking about graduate schools), you get a far different arrangement.
So as with everything, I suppose you just need to take it with a grain of salt.
I will say that a few of these picks go against the idea that there's a heavy recency bias. For instance, Boston, Utah, Milwaukee, and Dallas all have highly ranked FOs despite under-performing or doing far worse than other teams on that list, like Cleveland, the Clippers, and the Pelicans.
And as we know from the tank threads, Boston/Utah/Bucks are constantly praised for their moves and foresight, while teams like the Cavs/Clips/Pelicans are always questioned for why in the hell they do certain things. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|