McConnell, almost PER 15 but a modest .061 on WS/48, almost -2 on BPM and -1.3 on RAPM. Not bad for a rookie. But not a starter or not a good one and 50/50 at best he gets there. 22% TO% so far.
Some folks turning their nose up at all 17 of those PGs. Ok, go ahead and hope in McConnell or Ish Smith or Canaan or the guy that hasn't fallen in their lap in last 3 years but is going to in the next 3? I wasn't pushing a particular guy but there are certainly some decent realistic options instead of the limited to none worth considering in some people's eyes. Be super picky and the Sixers could drift outside the playoffs for 5 plus more years. This is pretty likely even if they have some luck and success because it is relative to have others already have or will pay to get, sooner than later.
Sam Hinkie gone :(
Re: Sam Hinkie gone :(
Looking at the record for teams who have a 20 or less win season and then eventually make at least the second round of the playoffs since 1980, the average interval of those who accomplish this (and many don't) is 6.3 years. Only the Spurs did it in less than 3 years. Slightly more than 30% took more than 8 years. 5 bounced back eventually to win a title but it took an average of almost 12 years. The Spurs with Duncan did it in 2 years. Nobody else in less than 11.
If the Sixers make second round in 2019 they will slightly beat the average of those who accomplish this. Less than 40% of these do it in 4 years or less.
If the Sixers make second round in 2019 they will slightly beat the average of those who accomplish this. Less than 40% of these do it in 4 years or less.
Re: Sam Hinkie gone :(
I never said he was a "good" point guard (for an NBA player) - just pointing out he's obviously NBA quality. He had the 2nd best +/- splits on that team of all the guys that played > 200 minutes - Philly being outscored by just over 7 pts / 100 possessions with him on the court, outscored by 13 pts / 100 possessions with him off the court.Crow wrote:McConnell, almost PER 15 but a modest .061 on WS/48, almost -2 on BPM and -1.3 on RAPM. Not bad for a rookie. But not a starter or not a good one and 50/50 at best he gets there.
RPM had him 38th of the 85 guys it listed at PG. By any measure, he deserves to be in the NBA (I'm certain he's top 360 by any & all metrics), and he just turned 24 - so he should get better.
FWIW, I'm a little sensitive about him - since he was the guy I suggested to the Mavs to sign as a summer league free agent (I would have begged, but I didn't want to look desperate), by my model he was easily by best projected true point guard not drafted. I proclaimed on twitter when he signed to be on the Sixers Summer League team that he would not only make the team - but start over half their games on the regular season. I was off there - but he did play the minutes of a half time starter.
Full disclosure - I am also an Arizona alum, & I watched every minute he played at Arizona. I told everyone he was a future All Pac 12 player when he transferred from Duquesne. My work always saw value in his skillset - outside of his never getting to the line.
Maybe I'm biased....
Re: Sam Hinkie gone :(
fwiw, I never said you said he was good. I just said he isn't yet. I barely know of him, but I know a lot of the guys I named are currently better than him by the metrics and many will still be in the future, probably. But good finding him and good to him for getting this far and good luck from here.
Sixers aren't that worthy of this much talk but whatever. The topic that caught my attention for the moment.
Sixers aren't that worthy of this much talk but whatever. The topic that caught my attention for the moment.
Re: Sam Hinkie gone :(
I really really hate this move for Philly. Given the starting point for Hinkie he did a fantastic job building the base they have, that franchise was in a world of trouble when he took over. To top it off, it reeks of nepotism and a GM likely to waste all the assets acquired. Ownership really messed up in deciding this late in the game to shift strategy, and it looks likely to backfire to me.
-
ampersand5
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:18 pm
Re: Sam Hinkie gone :(
In a hypothetical scenario, if all 29 other GMS were given the 76ers job at the same time as Hinkie, who would APBR forecast to have the best franchise in 2016? Where does Hinkie rank on your list?
For me, Hinkie would likely be top 3 on my list, at around to 10% odds (other contenders would be Morey/Witus, Ainge/Zarren, Buford)
Consider the following - 99% of GMs are eventually fired. If you ask fans about the general manager of their team from 7-10 years ago, almost all will they say were awful. Is it accurate to say that almost all GMs are below average? ofcourse not.
People don't appreciate that in a zero sum, 30 league team, half the league will be below average. This is compounded by the fact that certain teams will gain structural advantages that allow them to be elite for a long time (ie having Lebron).
Simply put, people don't comprehend how much luck is involved in success and how small the odds are of becoming good. This is aided by the fact that people are horrible at hindsight (oh, ofcourse that was an awful pick and ofcourse they should have drafted Rudy Gobert), forget that most teams are awful, and view outcomes as a measure of good managerial decision making.
For me, Hinkie would likely be top 3 on my list, at around to 10% odds (other contenders would be Morey/Witus, Ainge/Zarren, Buford)
Consider the following - 99% of GMs are eventually fired. If you ask fans about the general manager of their team from 7-10 years ago, almost all will they say were awful. Is it accurate to say that almost all GMs are below average? ofcourse not.
People don't appreciate that in a zero sum, 30 league team, half the league will be below average. This is compounded by the fact that certain teams will gain structural advantages that allow them to be elite for a long time (ie having Lebron).
Simply put, people don't comprehend how much luck is involved in success and how small the odds are of becoming good. This is aided by the fact that people are horrible at hindsight (oh, ofcourse that was an awful pick and ofcourse they should have drafted Rudy Gobert), forget that most teams are awful, and view outcomes as a measure of good managerial decision making.
Re: Sam Hinkie gone :(
Indeed, I completely agree.ampersand5 wrote: People don't appreciate that in a zero sum, 30 league team, half the league will be below average. This is compounded by the fact that certain teams will gain structural advantages that allow them to be elite for a long time (ie having Lebron).
Simply put, people don't comprehend how much luck is involved in success and how small the odds are of becoming good. This is aided by the fact that people are horrible at hindsight (oh, ofcourse that was an awful pick and ofcourse they should have drafted Rudy Gobert), forget that most teams are awful, and view outcomes as a measure of good managerial decision making.
And it is easy to throw out names in order to get a bigger list of player, who supposedly would have helped to improve the overall situation, while most of the names would either not be available for a reasonable prize or would only mean a marginal improvement, which would actually decrease the value of the upcoming pick. I wouldn't see the point either to throw either big money or a lot of assets away for those players. On the other side it would have been probabily a good idea to find a cheaper veteran PG, who has coaching ambitions. A coach on the court is usually helpful in team games for the development of young players. No idea whether that option was ever there for the 76ers and they simply declined or whether such opportunity never occured.
Re: Sam Hinkie gone :(
Don't know about GM 'records', but in the 20 year interval, 1996-2015, just 25% of head coaches had (ended) careers with >.500 W%
These are coaches who did not coach this season; some may return, some have retired voluntarily (and/or died), some are out to pasture.
Including this season -- which introduces some 'survivor bias' -- the figure is still just 30%.
So, 70-75% of all head coaches in the NBA are 'below average' in the most accessible measure of success.
I'd guess similar could be said of GM's, however one may measure it.
These are coaches who did not coach this season; some may return, some have retired voluntarily (and/or died), some are out to pasture.
Including this season -- which introduces some 'survivor bias' -- the figure is still just 30%.
So, 70-75% of all head coaches in the NBA are 'below average' in the most accessible measure of success.
I'd guess similar could be said of GM's, however one may measure it.
Re: Sam Hinkie gone :(
"Almost all GMs get fired" but a brief look at recent GMs suggests Hinkie got fired faster than the mean and median for the last 2 decades.
Anyone want to predict this top talent gets a GM offer from any of the 29 other owners this summer? I don't think he does. I named 8 teams as possibilities but it will probably come down to 2-3 thinking about it in 1-3 years and some or all will decide not to. So he may wait awhile longer for chance 2 or look at other sports.
Does Morey ask him back? That could be a question with job risk. Would he go back?
Anyone want to predict this top talent gets a GM offer from any of the 29 other owners this summer? I don't think he does. I named 8 teams as possibilities but it will probably come down to 2-3 thinking about it in 1-3 years and some or all will decide not to. So he may wait awhile longer for chance 2 or look at other sports.
Does Morey ask him back? That could be a question with job risk. Would he go back?
Re: Sam Hinkie gone :(
Based on the stats I provided earlier besides the Spurs nobody went from less than 20 wins to a title since 1980 in less than 11 years. That probably means several flights of players, several PGs, several coaches and probably more than one GM rather than one strategy executed. Did Hinkie pitch that he thought he could do it faster? Did the owners think it could be done faster? Who was more unrealistic or was it a fantasy match? I know you have to try and believe but that is the recent reality.
Re: Sam Hinkie gone :(
This article from 538 http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/eve ... e-by-2019/
gave Sixers least chance in league to win title by 2019 and looking at 2014-15 season the chance went down. 2019 is kinda early for Sixers in reality (not sure what they imagined) but does their chance rise above median for 2022?
What rank did they get in last fall's ESPN future power ranking? 17th. http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/0 ... -rankings/
A seven spot gain is something from the 24th they had before Hinkie, but that is still a weak rating with probably almost no chance at a title. The authors gave Sixers management a ranking of 15, quite different than ampersand's apparent 4th. What ranking will team without Hinkie (but with his legacy squad and picks) get next fall?
gave Sixers least chance in league to win title by 2019 and looking at 2014-15 season the chance went down. 2019 is kinda early for Sixers in reality (not sure what they imagined) but does their chance rise above median for 2022?
What rank did they get in last fall's ESPN future power ranking? 17th. http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/0 ... -rankings/
A seven spot gain is something from the 24th they had before Hinkie, but that is still a weak rating with probably almost no chance at a title. The authors gave Sixers management a ranking of 15, quite different than ampersand's apparent 4th. What ranking will team without Hinkie (but with his legacy squad and picks) get next fall?
Re: Sam Hinkie gone :(
besides the Spurs nobody went from less than 20 wins to a title since 1980 in less than 11 years.
miami went 15-67 in 2007-08, won titles 4 and 5 years later...
miami went 15-67 in 2007-08, won titles 4 and 5 years later...
Re: Sam Hinkie gone :(
Oops. Thanks for the correction. I must have been going a bit too fast in my note taking or write up. I know I checked the lead up to 2006 title but slipped somewhere on the late example. They are the only other fast case. It doesn't move the average much. Still more than 10 years on average. It would be really hard / unlikely to do something comparable to drafting Duncan after a tank year but having Robinson returning or signing James and Bosh to accompany Wade. But exceptional things happen / get done occasionally.
Re: Sam Hinkie gone :(
After referring back to it frequently I gave gotten more comfortable with the style of Hinkie's letter. I still think he would have been better chopping off some of the name dropping and intellectual flourishes but it his letter.
That aside, I will turn to one of his main points: focusing on "the deepest pool of star talent", the draft. Is it? My impression is that most to every free agency there are more confirmed and potential stars in it than most recent drafts with the draft "stars" only being early glimpse, mostly conjecture potential stars. I said imo the last 3 drafts combined had at most 5 top 2 players on a title contending team and maybe only one or two. The most recent free agency alone had probably 7-9 using a similarly lenient criteria. Many of those were RFA or not likely to leave current team but they were all technically available for bid. The draft is the best place to get value and "grab" a potential star by one unilateral decision but unless you have a once in a decade or generation draft class the accumulation of many past draft classes is likely to far outweigh the draft in confirmed stars and probably even potential stars (to the level of a #2 guy on a contender). I am not saying focus of free agency over the draft. I am just saying the star power in the draft is usually not the deepest pool of star talent and usually it isn't even close to the much larger, more proven free agent market.
3 years from now how many of Embid, Noel, Okafor and Saric will be considered confirmed "stars"? Between 1 and 2 seems like a decent guess. It could be zero. I'd be surprised if it was 3 or 4. 1-2 is probably normal. 2 and you have a chance of getting on a title path. 1 or 0 and you aren't outperforming and blasting past others. Maybe you have a shot with one super draftee if you compete for and are really good at acquiring top free agents or top players via trade. But you are in the herd then.
10 first round shots over next 6 years is indeed better than 4-6 though. For that Hinkie was rightly thanked, to some degree, despite the demotion moves. It probably won't happen but it would be interesting to hear Hinkie's future draft picks at the time of the draft and compare them to what the Sixers actually do. At least do it for the 2016 draft Sam.
That aside, I will turn to one of his main points: focusing on "the deepest pool of star talent", the draft. Is it? My impression is that most to every free agency there are more confirmed and potential stars in it than most recent drafts with the draft "stars" only being early glimpse, mostly conjecture potential stars. I said imo the last 3 drafts combined had at most 5 top 2 players on a title contending team and maybe only one or two. The most recent free agency alone had probably 7-9 using a similarly lenient criteria. Many of those were RFA or not likely to leave current team but they were all technically available for bid. The draft is the best place to get value and "grab" a potential star by one unilateral decision but unless you have a once in a decade or generation draft class the accumulation of many past draft classes is likely to far outweigh the draft in confirmed stars and probably even potential stars (to the level of a #2 guy on a contender). I am not saying focus of free agency over the draft. I am just saying the star power in the draft is usually not the deepest pool of star talent and usually it isn't even close to the much larger, more proven free agent market.
3 years from now how many of Embid, Noel, Okafor and Saric will be considered confirmed "stars"? Between 1 and 2 seems like a decent guess. It could be zero. I'd be surprised if it was 3 or 4. 1-2 is probably normal. 2 and you have a chance of getting on a title path. 1 or 0 and you aren't outperforming and blasting past others. Maybe you have a shot with one super draftee if you compete for and are really good at acquiring top free agents or top players via trade. But you are in the herd then.
10 first round shots over next 6 years is indeed better than 4-6 though. For that Hinkie was rightly thanked, to some degree, despite the demotion moves. It probably won't happen but it would be interesting to hear Hinkie's future draft picks at the time of the draft and compare them to what the Sixers actually do. At least do it for the 2016 draft Sam.
Re: Sam Hinkie gone :(
I presented material why Hinkie leaving now might not be "awful". That doesn't mean I would have fired him or brought in the Colangelos knowing that he was almost certain to leave even without a firing. The Hinkie plan does have a relatively good chance of working in 7-10 years to at least the degree of second round of playoff appearance. I might have taken much the same general path, perhaps with some different draft choices and maybe a somewhat quicker ramp up via free agent activity. If Hinkie had been more like Morey in courting and feeding the media and fans he probably could have somewhat reduced the ill will or increased the goodwill. It looks and feels like showmanship but there is a reason why most of his colleagues gave it more and a better effort.
I bounced around but I was trying to think about thinking, be contrarian, take the long view, present a quiver of arguments, recognize uncertainty, respect tradition, understand the past, show some humility in the PG you might have to settle for and go to war with for awhile and at least be open to "disruption" (pushing Hinkie out) if not "reverence" for it. I assume the Sixers owners went thru some "process" that paid mind to many of these things as they moved to diminish or remove him at this time, perhaps at the end of one period and primary task and the beginning of new ones. Whether they were right or wrong, I dunno without the full, inside view. Time will provide information but not necessarily a definitive, agreed upon answer.
I bounced around but I was trying to think about thinking, be contrarian, take the long view, present a quiver of arguments, recognize uncertainty, respect tradition, understand the past, show some humility in the PG you might have to settle for and go to war with for awhile and at least be open to "disruption" (pushing Hinkie out) if not "reverence" for it. I assume the Sixers owners went thru some "process" that paid mind to many of these things as they moved to diminish or remove him at this time, perhaps at the end of one period and primary task and the beginning of new ones. Whether they were right or wrong, I dunno without the full, inside view. Time will provide information but not necessarily a definitive, agreed upon answer.