Sam Hinkie gone :(

[Crow]

Thanks mystic for noticing that the 2011-12 Rockets win total was affected by the shorter season. I missed that. Yes, exact win total is influence by many things. Still true that Rockets were nothing special, middle of pack then and made lots of changes right after that to try to get elite without falling to the bottom.

[Crow]

Here is a quick value scale for season outcomes, imo. I might alter it a bit upon further reflection but this is about how I see it.

On 0-100 scale.

Less than 15 wins, value of zero (could be negative but I didn't go there).
15-25 wins, 1.
25-35, 2.
35 or more but no playoffs, 3.
First round appearance / loss, 5.
Second round, 10.
Conference finals appearance / loss, 20
Finals appearance / loss, 35.
Title, 100.

Are there very different scales of value out there? Let us hear it, if you want.

I didn't use money as the scale because I am not super rich and don't know how I'd value $50-$100 million vs. a title in their shoes. But it is probably worth that much to franchise value, setting aside the psychic value.

[Nate]

...

I didn't use money as the scale because I am not super rich and don't know how I'd value $50-$100 million vs. a title in their shoes. But it is probably worth that much to franchise value, setting aside the psychic value.

Is the marginal value of a championship really that big? Ostensibly Clippers licensed gear has gotten a lot more marketable now that Chris Paul is playing there, and wasn't Jerry Bus crowing about selling 20 year broadcast rights to Lakers games for $3 Billion?

If the payoff schedule is really that top-heavy, then yeah, it makes sense to look at all kinds of crazy stuff.

People in the organization e.g. Hinkie will have their own value structure - things like "keeping the job" or "proving my theory" or even personal connections are going to be bigger factors there.

Also, wow, that letter is something else. EDIT: That's not really accurate. I've seen similar stuff - it's the sort of rambling that happens when people can't mesh clear thinking with the medium.

[Crow]

There are easier ways than a title to get $ payoffs for some big market teams. But I am pretty confident that a recent title is worth at least $50 million in asset value at least for awhile, for the prestige, heightened tv interest, season tickets, etc. At least 5 years, probably longer. $50 mil is only a small fraction of avg. franchise value now. It would appear that a title is worth more than $100 million to Dan Gilbert. Maybe multiples of that.

[ampersand5]

Here is a quick value scale for season outcomes, imo. I might alter it a bit upon further reflection but this is about how I see it.

On 0-100 scale.

Less than 15 wins, value of zero (could be negative but I didn't go there).
15-25 wins, 1.
25-35, 2.
35 or more but no playoffs, 3.
First round appearance / loss, 5.
Second round, 10.
Conference finals appearance / loss, 20
Finals appearance / loss, 35.
Title, 100.

Are there very different scales of value out there? Let us hear it, if you want.

I didn't use money as the scale because I am not super rich and don't know how I'd value $50-$100 million vs. a title in their shoes. But it is probably worth that much to franchise value, setting aside the psychic value.

Are we guessing how financially valuable it would be - or how much it would satisfy the preferences of fans/owners?
This is my guess for how fans/owners would perceive it.

I'm trying to figure out my answer via tradeoffs - ie would I trade winning a championship for going to the first round three times...

champions - 100
finals - 40
2nd round - 25
first round - 20
barely missing playoffs - 4
bottom of the league - 2
last place - 1

[Crow]

"I didn't use money as the scale because..."

then I talked about money.

You can look at either way.

Your scale definitely values first round playoff appearances more than I did. Perhaps I got jaded about that based on teams I followed.

"would I trade winning a championship for going to the first round three times..."
Did you mean going to the FINALS three times?

[ampersand5]

"I didn't use money as the scale because..."

then I talked about money.

You can look at either way.

Your scale definitely values first round playoff appearances more than I did. Perhaps I got jaded about that based on teams I followed.

"would I trade winning a championship for going to the first round three times..."
Did you mean going to the FINALS three times?

Imagine if you have 110 units to spend over a 5 year period time.

You can buy 5 first round appearances for 20 units each
or
You can buy one championship at 100 units, plus 4 bad seasons with the remaining 10 units.

Which situation would you prefer?

[Crow]

I'd take the chip and 4 bad seasons. By a lot, using my own scale. By your scale the difference is slight and I think that calls into question the size of your first round appearance weight. 4 bad seasons and then a championship is an extreme, unlikely scenario. More likely string if you start with 4 bad would be one with at least 2 and probably 4, 6 or more seasons further to title season.

[Crow]

Let's say you start at 34 wins in a full season like Sixers before Hinkie. Then you go what the Sixers did the first 3 years and then say 21 wins next season, 32, 39, 47 / first round loss, 53 / second round loss, 57 / conference finals. Call that an intermediate scenario, somewhere between best and worst case. By my scale that is 43 points over 8 years. Your scale, 83.

Now, a don't tank, struggle for an immediate rebuild. This is just one possibility. 37, 46 / 1st rd, 48 / 2nd rd, 33, 37, 46 / 1st rd, 48 / 2nd rd, 33. This being equivalent to what Rockets did after 2011-12 minus 8 wins since they were 8 wins better than Sixers before Hinkie. My scale 40, your scale 102.

For these 2 scenarios my scale prefers first scenario slightly. Yours, the second scenario. I'll stick to my scale and the slight edge. Are you comfortable with your scale and this answer (favoring struggle from middle)? Of course change the scenario details and the comparison answer changes. I am not saying these is a precisely fair comparison. Just a demonstration of method for comparing any scenarios. I gave the tank scenario the greatest advancement but it lost the example by your scale. Would have had to get to finals at least to beat the from the middle, middling yo yo scenario by your scale or get as far quicker or count beyond season 8 and maintain high achievement. Conference finals or better or quicker advancement by tank scenario would have increased the lead of the tank scenario by my tally. Struggle from middle would have to get nearly as high or higher than tank scenario to beat it or maintained a bit better and not slipped back as much. Again, this is just example not a perfect scoring. But if historical average data were used for tank hard vs struggle from the middle that might draw more interest and credibility.

[Dr Positivity]

Since 1998 (the year after Tim Duncan) three teams picking top 3 in the draft have won a title after that date and all were meaningless to it, as they were Detroit picking Darko #2, Miami picking Beasley #2 and Golden State picking Dunleavy, Jr. #3. So picking top 3 is not a requirement to win a title, and if Hinkie thought it was, his idea was flawed based on that evidence alone (not that Hinkie had to win a title to be successful, he may have been aiming for OKC levels of success and then everything else is gravy)

I would suggest the real pattern is teams that become playoff caliber first, then luck into another star (such as free agency, late draft pick, someone else's pick)

GSW - had 1st/2nd round level play, then Draymond became Draymond in 14-15
SAS - were obviously a great team from 08-13 range, managed to draft star talent in Kawhi
LBJ MIA - playoff team with Wade, added LBJ/Bosh
DAL - added Tyson Chandler to a team just outside contention, if you consider him a star
LAL - playoff team with Kobe, added Pau
BOS - playoff level talent when healthy, added KG/Pierce
MIA - playoff team with young Wade, added Shaq
DET - playoff team before adding star Billups
LAL - playoff team with Shaq, drafted Kobe
SAS - bc of injury were able to add Duncan to a team with Robinson
CHI dynasty - playoff team with Jordan before Pippen pick, which wasn't their own (they used their own on Grant)
DET - were a good not amazing team with Isiah and Laimbeer at first then drafted pieces like Dumars and Rodman
Showtime Lakers - were good not title caliber team with Kareem in 70s, got Magic with another team's pick, later same for Worthy pick
Bird Celtics - were already a champion in 81 before McHale and Parish trade (again done with another team's pick), but adding them to already great team led to the 2 titles/4 Finals 84-88
PHI - added Moses to a contender

So based on this I'd say a second tier team like Toronto, Atlanta or Clippers landing a star through free agency or a fortunate draft pick, like LAC signing Durant or TOR picking a star with their New York/Denver lotto pick, is what fits the profile of previous routes to title. If OKC won in 2012 or MIN wins 3 years from now, that would be the more unprecedented route

[Crow]

If you get to finals but lose, recent history suggests you either get it next season or you probably don't get one. Get close, probably better go all in immediately. Thunder didn't. Thought they were already headed to dynasty. Or at least sustainable contention. They got some bad luck and the latter. Can they get a title well after the first finals? Dallas did it eventually after many tries but using far more and better vet role players. Thunder minutes weighted average age at 25.8. Nobidy wins that young. First Bulls title and GWS came at 26.9 and 26.6 respectively and were the youngest in modern history to my recollection. Not a big difference or absolute barrier but bucking history big time. Thunder average age is only 2.5 years above Sixers. Warriors at 27.4 this season. Spurs way older. Cavs, Clips older. Raptors younger but not as young as OKC. Did OKC and / or Toronto blow their chance by not doing more to stack the roster this season, even at the cost of the future. The first championship is probably the most valuable and the most worth sacrifices for. I suggested before that part of the Hinkie fall was related to being with a team with a title, expectations and intense fans. If he was at a lesser franchise, especially a fairly recent expansion franchise, he probably would gotten year 4 and maybe 5 before the pressure got to the level it got in Philly after 3.

[Crow]

Colangelo can keep existing analytics guys, make major or minor addition(s) or go for total new cast / style / skill bias. Will he favor traditional personnel guys, video geeks, low key traditional stat counters focused on easy interface with coaching staff guys, programming and modeling geeks, believers in adjusted plus-minus and / or a player similarity system, cap wizards, draft analyst, makers of pretty charts and graphs, simulators, brain & face type readers / hands on psychologists / teamwork synergy gurus, former players with past exposure to and openness to advanced analytics or possibly presently working in media names? Former employees of his in Phoenix or Toronto? An academic, a woman, a wildcard, perhaps from sports gambling? Somebody on another team currently, allowed to move for a fancier title and bigger paycheck? Somebody currently with a private analytic consulting firm? Somebody who has or still posts here? The only limits are willingness to pay and ability to attract. Willingness to listen to / use is a consideration but not necessary a limiting factor, at least immediately.

[Mike G]

Nice summary, but I must nitpick:

Bird Celtics - were already a champion in 81 before McHale and Parish trade ..

McHale and Parish came along in 1980, leading to their '81 title.

Since you're going back this far, may as well mention what may be the only known case of a team "blowing up" their core and subsequently becoming great: The Rockets gave up MVP Moses, sank to 14-68, then got lucky on 2 drafts -- Sampson and Olajuwon.

They made a quick trip to the Finals, then disintegrated; but they didn't get rid of Hakeem, they rebuilt around him. Between Finals trips they had 4 straight 1st round outs, missed once, got as low as 41 wins. But they kept their franchise player.

The '97 Spurs don't hardly count. Most "tanking" teams don't have an all-league player waiting to return.

[mystic]

So picking top 3 is not a requirement to win a title, and if Hinkie thought it was, his idea was flawed based on that evidence alone (not that Hinkie had to win a title to be successful, he may have been aiming for OKC levels of success and then everything else is gravy)

I don't think that just winning a championship was actually the idea, but Hinkie wanted to establish a foundation to be like the Spurs: Having success over many years. Tanking was just a part of that to get the necessary young talented players, which weren't there when Hinkie took over. But he also had a focus on player development and establishing other areas (like psychological support for the players, health&nutrition experts, etc.). It is a myth, that the strategy was just tanking until a superstar talent falls into his laps.

[ampersand5]

so I think the Hinkie discussion has run its course with two important questions raised: how valuable is a gm? how valuable are championships?

I just came across this incredibly fascinating article on the Houston Astros, doing the MLB equivalent of Hinkieball: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... data-reign

Can someone who knows more about baseball than me tell me about how the Houston Astros have fared. Not just their record, but the fan response (in houston and across the league), and their likelihood of future success? Thanks!