- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction Score
- 958
He was
OT Sam Hinkie
- Thread starter Dogdeacon
- Start date
- Status
He was
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 4,418
- Reaction Score
- 7,725
I have no idea who RoCo is?
Golden State had 2 straight winning/playoff seasons before they won, you were much better off when the Lakers were your comp. But hey GState only won 23 games in 2012 when the Sixers won 35 and had only just begun their 4 years & counting descent to the bottom. Clearly those teams are on the same path because ... age.
A better comp is OKC that you mentioned earlier who had 4 straight losing seasons with the last 2 being with Durant yet they still won 35, 31, 20 & 23 games while the 76ers have won 34, 19, 18 & now 10 and very likely will be less than 20 wins next year AND there is no one near Kevin Durant on the roster. And neither Ingram or Simmons is a surefire franchise guy at the moment. So the 76ers are definitively worse every one of those seasons, still getting worse and still don't have the signature franchise player on the roster or horizon so its likely at least 2 more years of losing seasons. That's too many AND they should absolutely be penalized by the league for not trying. And they aren't losing on purpose to tank on attendance and move the franchise like Seattle was!
How can you possibly say the Sixers are in a good place right now? They almost broke their own all-time record for losses in a season and did set the record for most consecutive losses. Was the plan to be historically and embarrassingly terrible? Losing basketball games is supposed to be collateral damage so that you can win basketball games later?! I dunno, I might not be a brilliant contrarian yet I think the best way to win basketball games is to try to win basketball games.
Again I understand Hinkie took a contrarian view and logically increased his odds of getting a franchise player by continually tanking. I'm disappointed the league chickened out and didn't vote for The Wheel or something other than the reward losing lottery system. Just because Hinkie identified a weakness & opportunity to exploit within the rules doesn't make it right (definitely not) or smart (TBD). My opinion is EVEN if this produces seasons of playoff contention equal to seasons of purposefully not competitive it is not worth it. There were other ways to get there.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction Score
- 958
RoCo=Robert Covington
I wasn't comparing PHI to GSW -- just refuting that young players can't be successful. Your data only helps make my point. GSW core is young and it wasn't vet leadership from Bogut and Barbosa that helped them win. The vet leadership example is SAS.
The team wins point, whether OKC or ORL, is irrelevant. Lots of losing teams in sports. And I would argue 10 wins or 20 wins are not a whole lot different -- doesn't crush your confidence. Winning solves everything.
I say the Sixers are in a good place because they have some good assets on the roster, more coming and plenty of future picks and cap space to continuously improve the team. Not a stretch to see the Sixers add Embiid, Saric, Ingram and perhaps Murray or Kris Dunn. What if the Bulls really want to trade Jimmy Butler as is being mentioned? How many teams can pull off the trade by sending young assets and picks? PHX? BOS?
Everyone wants to write the story of the Sixers when they are in the top of the 2nd inning. I am not looking in the rear view mirror, but I am looking out over the dash.
I wasn't comparing PHI to GSW -- just refuting that young players can't be successful. Your data only helps make my point. GSW core is young and it wasn't vet leadership from Bogut and Barbosa that helped them win. The vet leadership example is SAS.
The team wins point, whether OKC or ORL, is irrelevant. Lots of losing teams in sports. And I would argue 10 wins or 20 wins are not a whole lot different -- doesn't crush your confidence. Winning solves everything.
I say the Sixers are in a good place because they have some good assets on the roster, more coming and plenty of future picks and cap space to continuously improve the team. Not a stretch to see the Sixers add Embiid, Saric, Ingram and perhaps Murray or Kris Dunn. What if the Bulls really want to trade Jimmy Butler as is being mentioned? How many teams can pull off the trade by sending young assets and picks? PHX? BOS?
Everyone wants to write the story of the Sixers when they are in the top of the 2nd inning. I am not looking in the rear view mirror, but I am looking out over the dash.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction Score
- 958
I agree, there are lots of different strategies for achieving success in the NBA. The reason that they didn't vote to change the lottery rules is because the small market teams realize they are at a disadvantage in attracting free agents. So the lottery and draft are far more important to them.
Miami, NY, LA, Chicago -- these teams tend to use FA as a means to an end...and they should, its a competitive advantage. The Sixers chose to use the draft and followed the prototype implemented by countless teams before them -- including the GSW and OKC.
Miami, NY, LA, Chicago -- these teams tend to use FA as a means to an end...and they should, its a competitive advantage. The Sixers chose to use the draft and followed the prototype implemented by countless teams before them -- including the GSW and OKC.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,381
- Reaction Score
- 61,516
Nah.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5,918
- Reaction Score
- 10,556
I should rephrase my initial point, the sixers are in good position moving forward. But they really could have expedited this process by having a better talent evaluator at the helm.
They didn't just tank, they had historically bad seasons without getting any prospect to label a franchise center piece. Hinkie is a good at certain aspects of roster management, but needs to be like the third banana(which he refused to do causing him to step down)
They didn't just tank, they had historically bad seasons without getting any prospect to label a franchise center piece. Hinkie is a good at certain aspects of roster management, but needs to be like the third banana(which he refused to do causing him to step down)
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 4,418
- Reaction Score
- 7,725
Well put James.
Yes Wharton mentioned earlier that the Lakers are equally bad right now, but they spun a losing farce into a marketing coup with Kobe's disingenuous fond farewell tour AND they have a far better history/likelihood to rebound via free agency. If you factor in odds of landing a free agent the Laker's future title odds are still likely better than the 76ers. Regardless congratulations for being ahead of the 2nd worst team this year in the NBA. Didn't work out last year (Knicks & TWolves worse, both 10+ games upswing) or 2014 (Bucks only team worse in 14, went .500 in 15 & were on upswing until they got the 76ers stank via MCW
Lastly, I think the owners didn't vote to change the rules because of (1)fear and (2) suckers:
1. Fear that they wouldn't be smart enough to draft well and the knowledge that if they miss they are screwed.
2. Suckers because they know that with the lottery system in place they can always sell their fans that when they screw up (either the draft or via lousy teams which Hinkie did with unprecedented failure in each) they are sacrificing today for tomorrow.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction Score
- 958
The vote wasn't to change to a wheel -- that's the dumbest idea ever. The vote was to change the lottery odds. It seemed to be a sure thing, but in the end, all the small market teams banded together and voted it down.
Funny how everyone seems to be citing the "odds" of this and the odds of that while trashing Hinkie's analytical approach. All he ever committed to doing was attempt to improve the very low odds of the Sixers ever winning a championship.
Funny how everyone seems to be citing the "odds" of this and the odds of that while trashing Hinkie's analytical approach. All he ever committed to doing was attempt to improve the very low odds of the Sixers ever winning a championship.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 6,132
- Reaction Score
- 20,036
I think all of the following can be true -
1>Hinkie is a very smart dude
2>The 76ers are in pretty good shape right now because of Hinkie's strategy
3>They would be in even better shape if they were more lucky, or if they were better talent evaluators
4>The strategy is horrible for the League and the NBA is better off without Hinkie running the 76ers
1>Hinkie is a very smart dude
2>The 76ers are in pretty good shape right now because of Hinkie's strategy
3>They would be in even better shape if they were more lucky, or if they were better talent evaluators
4>The strategy is horrible for the League and the NBA is better off without Hinkie running the 76ers
It's called coaching. They pay money for that. It's the entire point of the profession.
They drafted MCW at 11. Very good pick. Nerlens Noel at 6, look at the people that went ahead of him and the next few picks, nothing wrong there. Embiid fell to them due to the injury, that's #1 pick talent that may still come through. Okafor was consensus #2 pick and they got him at #3. He averaged 17.5/7 on 50% shooting as a rookie. I think you take that, defense aside. Dario Saric is still looking good in Euroleague and will be a major asset when he comes over (or trade bait either way). Robert Covington was a nice undrafted free agent find.
I don't see a talent evaluation problem. I see a "Not winning #1 pick" problem, an injury issue, and a stashed lottery guy. I also see a Lakers being just bad enough to keep delaying the MCW trade value problem.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5,918
- Reaction Score
- 10,556
taking all those centers back to back was senseless, you can't play them a lot of minutes so you're not gonna even get great value if you decide to flip them.
Should have looked for someone to fit with Noel from the beginning , Aaron Gordon would have been great. Last year porzingis , a 3pt shooting big , was sitting right there for the taking. Or just trade down. No contender has 3 centers playing major minutes and being featured. Saric, who knows. Seriously could just be vesley
Should have looked for someone to fit with Noel from the beginning , Aaron Gordon would have been great. Last year porzingis , a 3pt shooting big , was sitting right there for the taking. Or just trade down. No contender has 3 centers playing major minutes and being featured. Saric, who knows. Seriously could just be vesley
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction Score
- 958
Funny how you think you know the value of any one of them in flip. Or how easy it is to trade up/down. Maybe you should be a GM.
Was Steph Curry higher than #7 on your big board in 2009? Where was Draymond in 2012? Oh and even though Kemba and the boys beat SD State in the tourney in 2011, you knew he was top 5 talent right?
Just curious, what does your big board look like this year 1-15?
.-.
Disagree. Should the Lions not have taken Calvin Johnson because they took WRs 3/4 years before? They weren't trying to win right now anyways, why not evaluate the consensus best talent and then trade the one you don't want? Naturally, they knew Embiid was out when they drafted Okafor so available minutes to evaluate weren't going to be an issue.
Centers don't trade well? Tell that to the Cavs/Timofey Mozgov.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5,918
- Reaction Score
- 10,556
@auror footballs a little different, I mean you have a ton of receivers on the field . The best NBA line ups feature 1 center, sometimes none. if okafor is a franchise center piece than the sixers are cooked, he's basically vucavic.
@WhartonHusky i know it's hard being a philly fan but step off the ledge. I'm not the only one whos perplexed by hinkies draft record recently.
@WhartonHusky i know it's hard being a philly fan but step off the ledge. I'm not the only one whos perplexed by hinkies draft record recently.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 4,418
- Reaction Score
- 7,725
I said either the wheel or something other than the reward losing lottery system. Known teams that voted against lottery reform included, Miami, Phoenix, Washington, Atlanta, Charlotte, Detroit, and Chicago, pretty big markets. Supposedly they tabled it because with the salary structure set to change drastically and a new collective bargaining agreement not too far off there were too many unknowns and fear of unintended consequences. There is that fear word again.
10 Takeaways From the NBA’s Rejection of Lottery Reform
auror are you ready to give up on Greg Oden's career and admit Durant should have gone first? MCW was unquestionably bad & the Sixers copped to this but made a good trade to dump him.
Embid was supposed to be #1, but then slipped due to the injury and many teams said they wouldn't take him. Yet the Sixers took him BECAUSE he would be injured and wouldn't help them that year = more lottery picks. This on the heels of purposefully getting worse by trading Jrue Holiday for Noel (a good trade except that Noel hadn't played yet when Philly made the Emibd pick). Embid in my view was their biggest error of all and it will remain that unless, Oh I don't know HE PLAYS IN AN ACTUAL NBA GAME.
Here is my summary of the last 3 years of 7ers basketball, tell me where I'm wrong;
2014 - Trade Jrue Holiday for Noel, knowing Noel won't play and they'll be worse, both happen 63 losses.
2015 - Pick Embid knowing he won't play and they won't improve - this is the key error b/c remember Noel hadn't played yet either. 64 losses
2016 - Pick Okafor because of pressure from 2 unprecedented losing seasons to get better immediately (despite position redundancy & 3rd big man in a row). Unfortunately although his offense was as expected, Okafor's defense was also as expected and the team unexpectedly actually got worse and they had the off-court immaturity embarrassments that brought in Colangelo, possibly at the leagues urging. His power eroded and his team at the bottom of the league Hinkie quits. 68 losses and counting
Results matter. The goal is not to keep Hinkie as GM, but in order to complete/extend the execution of his plan Hinkie certainly needed to keep his job. If Hinkie knew the team's would be this bad this many years in a row he'd also have known the pressure to fire him or odds thereof would increase and the risk of off-court troubles with a young roster would increase. He miscalculated how bad they would be, how long they would be bad and most importantly the cumulative effect of deferring lottery picks impact. Odds matter.
Yes, some things are errors in hindsight (drafting Greg Oden over Durant). but you should never judge decisions on hindsight, only the information available at the time and the decision making you used at the time.
Picking Okafor to get better immediately is not what happened. He was the consensus #2 best player (and #1 for most of the season), and part of a true top 2 tier (along with Towns, although some people thought DAR should be in the mix as well, and obviously he went #2 because the Lakers wanted a guard), and the Sixers drafted him at #3, knowing then that Embiid's injury may have been worse than initially expected.
When the cupboard is bare, you need to draft as much talent as possible. You can make trades to work out fit later, but you need a talent infusion. I don't see how drafting Embiid knowing that Noel hadn't played yet matters when considering that. Results matter while rebuilding only as much as they matter for your draft position and to your owners. His owners said they were committed and didn't care about results; they chose this path in fact. But they balked even as the plan was progressing. I don't see how that's anything but cowardice by the owners and should have no bearing on the merit of the strategy, unless your point is that humans are inherently cowards.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,381
- Reaction Score
- 61,516
http://deadspin.com/the-idea-behind-the-process-is-wrong-and-always-has-be-1769688492
The simple fact of the matter is that in three years Sam Hinkie showed that he was a poor talent evaluator. Nerlens Noel isn’t Steven Adams or Rudy Gobert, Michael Carter-Williams isn’t Giannis Antetokounmpo, Joel Embiid isn’t Aaron Gordon, Jahlil Okafor isn’t Kristaps Porzingis. Hinkie drafted over 10 players in the second round and tore through D-Leaguers and end-of-the-benchers via trade and ended up with just one (or maybe two) back-of-the-rotation players. One of the few times he did find something resembling real talent in the second round—K.J. McDaniels—Hinkie offered the player an insulting contract and soon traded him.
The simple fact of the matter is that in three years Sam Hinkie showed that he was a poor talent evaluator. Nerlens Noel isn’t Steven Adams or Rudy Gobert, Michael Carter-Williams isn’t Giannis Antetokounmpo, Joel Embiid isn’t Aaron Gordon, Jahlil Okafor isn’t Kristaps Porzingis. Hinkie drafted over 10 players in the second round and tore through D-Leaguers and end-of-the-benchers via trade and ended up with just one (or maybe two) back-of-the-rotation players. One of the few times he did find something resembling real talent in the second round—K.J. McDaniels—Hinkie offered the player an insulting contract and soon traded him.
Stainmaster
Occasionally Constructive
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2014
- Messages
- 21,996
- Reaction Score
- 41,453
It's obvious that we have a member of the Hinkie family posting on the board. Be sensitive, guys.
.-.
I think that article is missing the point. They understand the underlying principle, that getting more draft picks gets you more whacks at the goal, but they assume that talent evaluation and drafting is a skill that one can master or at least have a size-able advantage over someone else. Hinkie's claims that he doesn't have an advantage in that area is not because he doesn't think they are good at drafting, it's that they think almost nobody is much better than anyone else. There is a reason that expected player value correlates HIGHLY with draft slot, and that is because in the aggregate we are quite good at consensus pre-draft order and that GMs generally draft well. It's not a crapshoot.
It is true that someone who is good at drafting would optimize a tanking/drafting strategy, but there's so much random noise, small sample sizes, reliance on who drafts ahead of you, and other things that we cannot in good faith proclaim people good drafters. That article is giving too much credit to single picks. ESPN did an analysis of who the best drafters were based on players productions over their career, and the guy who rated as the best drafter also drafted Andrea Bargnani, enough said.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction Score
- 958
There is risk in any/all player evaluation and selection. But if not through the draft, than how better to build a team? Free agency? This is not fraught with risk and luck? Ask the Mavs about Deandre Jordan. Ask the Knicks about Greg Monroe. Ask the Kings why they cleared so much cap space only to find that they struck out on all the FAs they wanted.
Net-net, there are no guarantees in sports. What Hinkie did is accumulated assets and optionality. Shame he won't be able to see it to fruition.
Net-net, there are no guarantees in sports. What Hinkie did is accumulated assets and optionality. Shame he won't be able to see it to fruition.
nomar
#1 Casual Fan™
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,620
- Reaction Score
- 49,066
Sounds like Stockholm Syndrome. Will, it's not your fault.
If Warde Manuel dismissed all of Kevin Ollie's best players so we would purposely lose games, you bet your @ss I would have found another team to watch
Waquoit
Mr. Positive
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 36,388
- Reaction Score
- 101,702
That this strategy has widespread support is just more proof the NBA sucks. The fact that tanking is acceptable is outrageous. Let's call it what it is - losing on purpose. Or if that's too strong, not trying to win. Didn't the Black Sox get banned for doing the same thing? Why would anyone buy a season ticket? That's why the EPL is so great. Every game played means something. Every team tries to win every game. That's sports, competition, trying to win,
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction Score
- 958
Until the new players turned into a championship caliber team -- then you'd be right back on the bandwagon. When you are a diehard, you don't consider those options. Just ask Cubs fans.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction Score
- 958
EPL? Really? Clearly you don't follow Chelsea. Never seen a team quit on their coach quite like that.
Tanking exists in all major sports. Wake up fellas.
Tanking exists in all major sports. Wake up fellas.
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction Score
- 958
Curious....is it ok for the GSW to rest their starters? Ok for San Antonio to rest the big 3 on back-to-backs? I mean, by sitting the stars you are obviously not "trying to win".
nomar
#1 Casual Fan™
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,620
- Reaction Score
- 49,066
I don't need to ask a Cubs fan. Look at my handle, dude.
I understand that deep down, the strategy was aimed at maximizing the team's chance at winning a title -- as opposed to, say, what the Indians' owner was doing in Major League -- but at a certain point you have to get angry at the team for picking a strategy that was (a) guaranteed to produce a garbage team for a period of years, (b) likely to alienate a lot of players and agents, and (c) unlikely to produce a title. No? Where do you draw the line? Simply having a plan? Because that's all that happened. And the plan was hardly genius. Hinkie may be smart, but as you point out, he was hardly the first person to think, "Gosh, if we win 5 games a year, we have a good chance of repeatedly getting the first pick in the draft."
As Fishy said, he had stones. I'll give him that. Stones to try it, knowing that he would tick off a lot of Sixers fans (excluding certain people who were going to give him a free pass simply because he had a plan and traded an overrated ROY).
Agents can have long memories. We'll see whether this has any long-term ramifications in terms of FA signings.
You're a good fan for watching that garbage team 70+ times a year, not because you're giving Hinkie a pass. You chose to do that, and I respect that you haven't turned on him. But you have the right to. Sixers fans have the right to be angry.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 14,790
- Reaction Score
- 82,434
That's just a "get off my lawn" argument from someone who's proud of not watching the NBA. There's plenty of vocalized opposition to tanking and you can be sure the league is considering how to address it.
As for the process, I really don't give a ___ about Sam Hinkie or the Sixers, but we're talking about basketball here. It's five guys. It doesn't take a decade to build a competent team, especially when you get a top pick every single year. How the ___ are the Houston Astros competitive before the 76ers? I appreciate Ms. Hinkie taking the time to post on the Boneyard, but I've never understood the notion that rebuilding an NBA team is some sort of generational project. I'm curious as to what Ms. Hinkie thinks is a reasonable time frame for the 76ers challenging for anything meaningful. A decade? Two decades? If that's the case, what the ____ is the point?
nomar
#1 Casual Fan™
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,620
- Reaction Score
- 49,066
Really? This is a very bad comparison.
When a team rests its starters, it still wants to win. It sees the value of rest as being higher than the value of a win, but it still wants the win. It's not sitting starters to increase the chance of losing the game.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 4,418
- Reaction Score
- 7,725
You are wrong there, listen to the LowePost podcast. Hinkie specifically says that if you are going to emphasize the draft than you better damn well invest in drafting evaluations/scouting so that you can improve & exceed other's performance. He knew they had to be both lucky & good for their draft emphasis strategy to succeed and fact is to this point they were neither.
I cannot think of one other instance in business, sports, education etc.. where purposefully being terrible is a viable strategy. Conceptually, the lottery system is supposed to help balance the league. It used to be the biggest negative was potentially great players getting stuck on perpetually poorly run franchise's like the Clippers (hmm, they might be a case study most similar to what happens with Hinkie's consecutive tanking strategy) and those players' potential is diminished. Guys like Demarcus Cousins or pretty much every Clippers 1st rounder from Benoit Benjamin until Blake Griffin. Sports are competitive and the fact that not trying to win is EVER desirable needs to be eliminated from the game. It really is a form of moral hazard that Hinkie espoused and engaged in, but instead of a government too big to fail bail out he exploited a flaw in the system.
Waquoit
Mr. Positive
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 36,388
- Reaction Score
- 101,702
Isolated instances like Chelsea, sure. Even so, how many games has Chelsea lost in the EPL this year? One?
But massive institutional tanking like we see in the NBA? NHL maybe? But only in the NBA are they saying losing on purpose is worthwhile. That tanking is valid, losing is a good thing. Anyplace else tanking is met with scorn.
.-.
- Status