APBRmetrics

Crow wrote:Which of these strategies had / has a better chance of a title... a team with Embid, Noel and Okafor (all centers?) or two of them and a better PG than you have now and who will likely be better in near to immediate future than an even younger, less experienced and developed PG that you maybe get this summer, the next or the next?

Well, that is in theory correct that a better PG would be needed, just because the minutes for different positions are limited and playing Embiid, Noels and Okafor at the same time does not look like a viable option given their limited skillsets (not talking about Embiid, who seems to be incredible skilled for a big). But such a PG must also be available. Wanting better players is the goal of every team, but the amount of really good guards is limited as well.

Crow wrote: I'd want my PG of the future early in the process, probably earlier than my center, especially these days.

I would also like to start with Curry and Paul, but I seriously doubt the Warriors or Clippers are giving them up for free.

Crow wrote:Moving on from Holiday was ok for a title ambitious team, moving on from MCW was right too but you still got to fill that slot, fill it well and fill it fast. And then keep working on the rest for 3, probably 5, maybe 7 more years.

Who would that PG be? I'm not seeing that PG in the draft, who I would have taken ahead of Okafor. I'm not seeing the PG who should have been taken ahead of Embiid. A reasonable question should rather be: Shouldn't have Porzingis be the logical 3rd pick in the last draft? That seems to me like a legit question, but I really don't see much of an argument for your position, that Hinkie should have started with a PG, when in fact no PG with the necessary quality was available, for sure not at the promising quality Embiid or Okafor ahead of the draft.

It was expected especially after Colangelo.

the rational and scientific approach to running an NBA team.

And how did Hinkie do that? By tanking to get high draft picks? Or by making very scientific decisions in draft picks and trades? 76ers will never go to Finals again in this decade. Surely not with these guys.

permaximum wrote:It was expected especially after Colangelo.

the rational and scientific approach to running an NBA team.

And how did Hinkie do that? By tanking to get high draft picks? Or by making very scientific decisions in draft picks and trades? 76ers will never go to Finals again in this decade. Surely not with these guys.

The rational and scientific approach to running an NBA team doesn't have to do with actions taken, but the motivation and thought behind them.
It is immaterial that Hinkie tanked. I am not privy to Hinkie's analysis on drafting players or making trades, but from everything else I know, I can only assume it was done with serious rigour. I really don't understand your point though - are you trying to argue that he made bad draft picks and trades? Do you really think Hinkie isn't employing and relying on analytics in his analysis? More importantly, from what we do know with certainty, the way Hinkie went about making trades was done "rationally and scientifically" as can be demonstrated by his overlying strategy, and ability to find inefficiencies and exploit them.

Looking at the 2014 and 2015 drafts, the number of good or expected to become good PGs is indeed low. Maybe lower than I thought. But Smart and Cam Payne were available in trade downs. Zach Lowe noted that Sixers could have gotten Isaiah Thomas or Cory Joseph or Rondo. They probably could have gotten Reggie Jackson or Darren Collison and probably for less than the 3rd pick directly. Patty Mills, Beverley or Lin. They might have been able to get Schroeder or Teague and possibly more for a #3 pick. Maybe Rubio. maybe Conley the way things went. Likely could have gotten George Hill. I wasn't asking for an unrealistic superstar PG... but package multiple first round picks and who knows? Kemba Walker or John Wall? One or both are pretty likely to get traded or walk for lack of a realistic, resigned to move him instead of getting nothing, trade. Not getting a better replacement for MCW faster was either from not offering enough or not wanting it yet badly enough, i.e. wanting to tank one or more years more than they were going to anyways even with a better PG given how bad the rest of the players and perhaps the coaching too was. Kyrie Irving might be available in next 18 months.

Crow wrote:looking at the 2014 and 2015 drafts, the number of good or expected to become good PGs is indeed low. Maybe lower than I thought. But Smart and Cam Payne were available in trade downs. Zach Lowe noted that Sixers could have gotten Isaiah Thomas. They probably could have gotten Reggie Jackson or Darren Collison and probably for less than the 3rd pick directly. Beverley or Lin. They might have been able to get Schroeder and possibly more for a #3 pick. Maybe Rubio. maybe Conley the way things went. I wasn't asking for an unrealistic star PG... but package multiple first round picks and who knows?

why?

First, the Hinkie 76ers have never finished in last before. They weren't trying to be good this year. You could argue that Hinkie should have cared more about wins this season, but aside from placating the media, what is their purpose?

Second, why would Hinkie trade Okafor for Collison. The whole purpose of the tank was to acquire elite assets. Okafor has a much higher chance of becoming an elite player than Collison, or the other players you named, who would have been available.

Third, the whole point of the Hinkie model is to always improve your assets in every trade. Hinkie was waiting to acquire a PG when the opportunity presented (and he was in no rush to do so), or it became a necessity. Why would Hinkie take on a trade that aside from minimizing his chances of acquiring elite talent, would have decreased his total asset value?

In what way could it be argued that trading Okafor + a pick for Conley would have helped the 76ers achieve their longterm goals, or even benefit the organization; a player who's age wouldnt progress with the rest of the lineup, a player who would have come at an overpriced deal, and a player who would have substantially reduced Philadelphia chances of getting a top pick in this draft.

Keep in mind that Philly thought they had 2 pgs to start the season, both were injured.

I haven't argued directly for trying to win more this season. I would argue for trying harder in the next 1-3 seasons than it appeared Hinkie would left entirely to his own devices. To me, the fans and the owners.

I said you could try to get a bunch of guys, some for a #3 pick, some less, some more. Collison was a less target. Seeing Divac operate, I'd guess Hinkie probably could have gotten a lot for the #3 from him.

Conley is 28, a bit older than ideal. But he is vastly better than the PGs they have and may prove better than any they actually get in next 3-5 years. Acquiring him or another good PG doesn't require keeping him forever. He is still an asset that could be moved for better and / or younger later. To get a good PG usually requires giving back one, unless he is about to be a free agent or a team has two.

In the end I mentioned 17 possible PG targets. Don't like the Conley option? Then pursue one of the other 16. Or get one of the best in the next draft instead of later.

Acquiring extra draft picks is like drawing extra cards in poker. Forfeiting hands / pots and trying to play with more cards later. But beyond the immediate lost seasons, these young usually not very good at the time players eventually become expensive, more expensive and more competitively sought than ever RFAs. Embid and Noel will hit RFA before Saric contributes much. And maybe before they themselves are above average, at least according to RPM. Okafor will probably hit RFA before they have a PG who is performing above average and probably before he is. Yeah they can keep them all... but then they will have a real tough time keeping many or any of the second or third wave of draft picks. When do the free agent pieces to the puzzle enter?

Title teams are usually older than league average, often lots older. How many titles do the young draft driven Thunder have? Will they even get one? They got 3 top 7-10 played and in year 9 of Durant have a 5% or less chance at this season's title. Yeah it is real tough and you got to try some strategy and being bold and different is understandable. But what odds did folks give Hinkie of winning a title? The Colangelos? 10-30% was mentioned. Two days ago and at this moment I might guess under 10, maybe under 5%, maybe well under 5% given how little they have in hand yet. But I haven't studied it closely. I jumped in merely casting doubt that it was a huge tragedy that he quit.

What team hires Hinkie and when? The Griz? Bucks? Kings? Wolves? Wizards? Pelicans, Suns or Nuggets? In a year or 3? Or longer or not at all? Probably a bad team will try it, eventually. Will it end better? Will he try to get better quicker or talk with the outside world more? Will he hire 25 year old techies into top positions again? Even if you accept Hinkie's whole philosophy, do you want him in the top job? You can take the one without the other.

If / when they are trying to win with Covington, Saric, Noel, Okafor and Embid, I'd want someone other than a young rookie deal PG, even the best of them. I'd want a guy who is proven. 25, 28, whatever. Try that lineup with a 20-22 year old PG and you're not getting to .500, much less contention or a title.

If Hinkie and ownership were shooting for 2022 or beyond, they could have stayed the course. If they were shooting for 2019 or 2020 they were probably off-track, badly.

Number of guys in last 3 drafts who could be a top 2 player on a title winning team, at least in the next 5 years? Maybe 5 but maybe just one or two. Of the 5 Embid might be one of the lower chances; it is just speculation at thus point. Waiting for superstars in these coming drafts has slim odds of working any time in immediate future if they are so rare.

What are the folks with international projection systems and / or game watching input expecting from Saric? Top 5-10 SF? How fast? Does a near 22 year old with "just" a PER 21 in the Euroleague usually get that high? My assumption is no and not even close most of the time.

I assume Brett Brown will be gone in 3 to 18 months and maybe more likely in first half of range than the back half. As the coach with the worst record in NBA history for more than 82 games, I don't see a lot of reason to expect he is or will be above average or elite or even average. The main reason to keep him around is to continue the tank. Nothing particular useful is happening with lineup construction and development to my understanding.

Bryan Colangelo? I think 4 trips beyond first round in 19 years? No titles, no finals appearances. Is that elite? It isn't what was hoped for. The Raptors stalled out and went backwards pretty fast and steadily.

In the end I mentioned 17 possible PG targets. Don't like the Conley option? Then pursue one of the other 16. Or get one of the best in the next draft instead of later.

Not one of those PGs makes an ounce of sense for that team with it's current state and objectives.

if one of the objectives was player development, what really doesn't make sense is not having a single nba-caliber point guard on your entire roster


i was a big fan of what hinkie did clearing out the mess he came into, but his management of the team as an investment portfolio had a lot of pitfalls


it's too bad the sixers are going with the colangelos for their next phase - i can't think of anything they bring to the table

sndesai1 wrote:if one of the objectives was player development, what really doesn't make sense is not having a single nba-caliber point guard on your entire roster

TJ McConnell is definitely "NBA caliber".

He may not be starter on a decent NBA team caliber - but he's better than replacement level.

Of course, he wasn't drafted, he was a rookie free agent signing.