Sustained success as measured by playoff appearances

[ruckus]

Not that I'm convinced that we have the core of the future to take this team on another run of success but I find it pretty remarkable how quickly they transitioned from a high floor/low ceiling core of Fred/OG/Pascal/Scottie to a low floor/high ceiling core of Scottie/IQ/RJ/Dick.

Next season will be a good barometer to see just how successful this team could ultimately be with those 4 guys as the base.

For me, it all hinges on Scottie reaching his potential.

[ArthurVandelay]

Raptors were a year late in starting the rebuild, but now that they are 3 months in to it, I hope the FO isn't planning any shortcuts for short term success (a la Colangelo's accelerated rebuild). The most likely result of that would be peaking in 2-3 years and starting over yet again.

We were doing the Miami Heat style treadmill rebuild and that may have worked out if we traded for Myles Turner instead of Poeltl. Nonetheless without a floor spacing centre, with OG probably seeking $40 million/year and Pascal not having super high value, Masai pivoted to a tear down rebuild (his first time ever doing so). Anyways, there's no way Masai and the front office gets lazy and looks for half-assed shortcuts, not even sure why that would be suggested; especially when you consider that this is an outstanding post and topic which really demonstrates just how good we've been at drafting, developing and building a winning culture.

I wrapped it up with my .02

I do have concerns that Masai goes all in next year. I’m hoping he learned his lesson with Demarre Carroll and Poeltl. Going all in when a team isn’t there will lead to painful consequences.

I think the correct course of action, and this is likely to offend a number of posters, is to tank next year if the pick conveys or not. All they’d have to do is keep a C rotation of KO and Jontay. Poeltl is definitely a floor raiser and his impact is noticeable on this team. He might not be a superstar but there is no question he contributes to winning imo.

While I fully recognize there are many ways to build a team, it comes down to probabilities. Fact is the highest probability to obtain a star player is through the draft and the higher the pick, the greater the chance of a star. That isn’t opinion, it’s a combination of probability and history. To go the trade route, the raptors would be giving up all their assets and will be left with no depth. FA isn’t happening unless Canadians start wanting to come home (and if that is the plan, taking no money beyond 2026 ensures it’s a possibility).

So in a nutshell, if I’m Masai, I’m not half-assing this rebuild. This summer I’m:

- acquiring as many assets as possible (prospects and picks) using cap space or expiring contracts,
- trading Poeltl, and
- doing all I can to get a high pick in 2025.

One more year of pain would significantly improve the chances of sustainable success imo.

The two teams that stand out the most to me are OKC and Memphis. OKC story is well known but the similarity is they started their rebuild with a franchise cornerstone rostered in SGA, Raptors have that with Scottie. OKC stunk for two years, we’re competitive last year, and now they are flying high. Memphis stunk for two years and hit home runs at 2 and 4, then hit a home run at 29, were competitive, and then became a playoff team. Obviously Ja messed everything up but in terms of building a competitive roster, they were well on their way.

[Morse Code]

Playoff appearances don't equate to success IMO

Sent from my LG-H873 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[ArthurVandelay]

Playoff appearances don't equate to success IMO

Sent from my LG-H873 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Definitely agree

However few (if any?) teams go from out of the playoffs to championship. Only ones I can think of is San Antonio (Duncan rookie year) and Warriors in 2022. Most teams take a few cracks to figure it out.

The OP was an attempt to put the whining about the raptors current record into perspective about how difficult it is to make the playoffs each year let alone compete for a championship. It was also an attempt to show what usually happens before sustainable success is achieved (losing), and as noted making the playoffs each year is a low bar for success when ultimately true success is winning.

I’m definitely on the championship or bust train…but that is a multi year trip.

Another poster made a very good point, paraphrased, that each person should examine what they want out of being a Raptor fan. There are some people content with just making the playoffs.

[billy_hoyle]

I think a generational talent is a relatively obvious "you know it when you see it" type deal. Like no one will argue that Jokic isn't or MJ, Lebron, KD etc. usually it's a player that is consistently top 3 in the league in performance, MVP voting, impact etc. But for sure, there is no textbook definition that I'm aware of.

Why is it slim? History for one, and just the entire purpose and structure of the lotto. The best prospects get selected first in most cases, and the higher the pick, usually the better performance of the player over their career.

Assuming you mean 7/10 last MVPs = last 10 years of MVPs. In the last 10 years there have only been 7 unique winners, 4 of which were Jokic and Giannis, 2 players that statistically out perform their draft selection by a large margin. Especially Jokic. They are exceptions, not the rule.

So that leaves us with Embiid 3rd OA, Harden 3rd OA, Westbrook 4th OA, Curry x2 7th OA, and KD 2nd OA. So ignoring outliers, 80% have been a top 5 pick. And this trend continues the further you go back 2013-1983. In order starting from 2013 :

Lebron x2, 1st OA
Rose, 1st OA
Lebron x2, 1st OA
Kobe, 13th OA. Which I think we all know was only cause he said he would only play for the Lakers.
Dirk, 9th OA
Nash x2, 15th OA
Garnett, 5th OA
Duncan x2, 1st OA
Iverson, 1st OA
Shaq, 1st OA
Malone, 13th OA
MJ, 3rd OA
Malone, 13th OA
MJ, 3rd OA
Robinson, 1st OA
Hakeem, 1st OA
Barkley, 5th OA
MJ x2, 3rd OA
Magic x2, 1st OA
MJ, 3rd OA
Magic, 1st OA
Bird x3, 6th OA
Moses, undrafted as he came from the ABA.

So from a raw unique player count, 11 of 16 (not counting Moses) players who won an MVP in the last 30 years were picked in the top 5, essentially 70%. 21 out of 30 total MVP awards were given to players drafted in the top 5, again, 70%.

It's slim, because of history. And this is just MVP awards, not players that are tops in the NBA that haven't won a trophy yet. E.G. Luka, Tatum, and so on.

So yeah, you can rely on scouting and drafting as much as possible, but sometimes it doesn't matter how good your drafting is, if you have the 23rd pick.

I find this analysis very shallow.

I'm going to ignore 'outliers', proceeds to ignore data and call it out as exceptions.

That's bizarre.

I could argue that only repeat winners of the MVP should be considered as single MVP seasons are more likely 'outliers'.

That leaves Lebron, Joker, Giannis, Curry, Nash in the last 25 yrs.

Only one drafted top 5. 80% of the true MVP caliber player are drafted outside the top 5.

These are small samples we're dealing with, you can't arbitrarily name things outliers to fit a narrative.

I thinks it's obvious that you don't need to tank to secure high end talent. Look at the make up of the all NBA teams. Just draft well.

What lol? I took 30 years of MVP winners and the result was that 70% of the winners, were selected in the top 5. Based on your argument, any player that has won less than 2 MVP trophies is an outlier? Do you not understand how ridiculous that sounds?

We should ignore Hakeem, who is one of the greatest centres in the history of the NBA, because he only won a single MVP trophy? Or Shaq? This might be one of the worst takes I've ever heard lol.

If a player won an MVP, they won an MVP. There is not a single player on that entire list that anyone would not consider a generational talent. This is cherry picking at its finest.

My point was that you excluding Jokic and Giannis as outliers was rediculous. I made a less rediculous claim than yours (that multiple MVPs should only be considered, and that present data is more applicable i.e. use the last 20 yrs only), and you called it rediculous.

I'm trying to point out that you clearly have a bias that isn't allowing you to see reality. You don't need to tank to get an MVP. Your oversimplifying a very complex system.

[Scase]

I find this analysis very shallow.

I'm going to ignore 'outliers', proceeds to ignore data and call it out as exceptions.

That's bizarre.

I could argue that only repeat winners of the MVP should be considered as single MVP seasons are more likely 'outliers'.

That leaves Lebron, Joker, Giannis, Curry, Nash in the last 25 yrs.

Only one drafted top 5. 80% of the true MVP caliber player are drafted outside the top 5.

These are small samples we're dealing with, you can't arbitrarily name things outliers to fit a narrative.

I thinks it's obvious that you don't need to tank to secure high end talent. Look at the make up of the all NBA teams. Just draft well.

What lol? I took 30 years of MVP winners and the result was that 70% of the winners, were selected in the top 5. Based on your argument, any player that has won less than 2 MVP trophies is an outlier? Do you not understand how ridiculous that sounds?

We should ignore Hakeem, who is one of the greatest centres in the history of the NBA, because he only won a single MVP trophy? Or Shaq? This might be one of the worst takes I've ever heard lol.

If a player won an MVP, they won an MVP. There is not a single player on that entire list that anyone would not consider a generational talent. This is cherry picking at its finest.

My point was that you excluding Jokic and Giannis as outliers was rediculous. I made a less rediculous claim than yours (that multiple MVPs should only be considered, and that present data is more applicable i.e. use the last 20 yrs only), and you called it rediculous.

I'm trying to point out that you clearly have a bias that isn't allowing you to see reality. You don't need to tank to get an MVP. Your oversimplifying a very complex system.

I called them outliers, because they quite literally are. In the last forty years there have been three MVPs that were picked 15th or later. That is the text book definition of an outlier. Especially when you take Jokic into account who is the only player to ever come from the 2nd round be an MVP.

I'm not discounting them, I'm simply stating that using them as an example of what you can expect and plan around, is like claiming winning the lottery is your retirement plan, because some people have won it in the past.

And you honestly think, that stating players like Shaq and Hakeem are not generational talents, because they only won a single MVP, is LESS ridiculous, than stating that Giannis and Jokic are statistical outliers?

What in the absolute **** am I reading lol

[WaltFrazier]

Playoff appearances don't equate to success IMO

Sent from my LG-H873 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Definitely agree

However few (if any?) teams go from out of the playoffs to championship. Only ones I can think of is San Antonio (Duncan rookie year) and Warriors in 2022. Most teams take a few cracks to figure it out.

The OP was an attempt to put the whining about the raptors current record into perspective about how difficult it is to make the playoffs each year let alone compete for a championship. It was also an attempt to show what usually happens before sustainable success is achieved (losing), and as noted making the playoffs each year is a low bar for success when ultimately true success is winning.

I’m definitely on the championship or bust train…but that is a multi year trip.

Another poster made a very good point, paraphrased, that each person should examine what they want out of being a Raptor fan. There are some people content with just making the playoffs.

Taking your last paragraph, the logical conclusion of this is that it's ok to be whatever kind of fan you want. But there are posters here, on both sides of the tank vs compete dichotomy, who want others to think only as they do.

[XTC]

Conclusion - Kyle Lowry is one of the most underrated NBA players of all time.

Lowry is obviously the GROAT, but we can't discredit Derozan. Him and Lowry where an amazing 1-2 punch and lead the most amazing run in Raptors history.

Derozan alongside Lowry brought legitimacy to our franchise. Both players will get their numbers retired.

[mowcrowbar]

Lots of new fans do not know the struggles during the earlier eras. Just be happy we have a solid young core and great management who are willing to win.

[ArthurVandelay]

Playoff appearances don't equate to success IMO

Sent from my LG-H873 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Definitely agree

However few (if any?) teams go from out of the playoffs to championship. Only ones I can think of is San Antonio (Duncan rookie year) and Warriors in 2022. Most teams take a few cracks to figure it out.

The OP was an attempt to put the whining about the raptors current record into perspective about how difficult it is to make the playoffs each year let alone compete for a championship. It was also an attempt to show what usually happens before sustainable success is achieved (losing), and as noted making the playoffs each year is a low bar for success when ultimately true success is winning.

I’m definitely on the championship or bust train…but that is a multi year trip.

Another poster made a very good point, paraphrased, that each person should examine what they want out of being a Raptor fan. There are some people content with just making the playoffs.

Taking your last paragraph, the logical conclusion of this is that it's ok to be whatever kind of fan you want. But there are posters here, on both sides of the tank vs compete dichotomy, who want others to think only as they do.

For sure. Everyone is different.

I think, for me, it's about hope. If they are awful, but they have young guys and they are showing improvement, I can get behind that and tolerate the Ls looking longer term. If they are a contender, that's the best, obviously. But what I despise is mediocrity. That is what the last couple of seasons have been about. Only gripe I have right now is the restrictions on the draft pick.

[bluerap23]

What lol? I took 30 years of MVP winners and the result was that 70% of the winners, were selected in the top 5. Based on your argument, any player that has won less than 2 MVP trophies is an outlier? Do you not understand how ridiculous that sounds?

We should ignore Hakeem, who is one of the greatest centres in the history of the NBA, because he only won a single MVP trophy? Or Shaq? This might be one of the worst takes I've ever heard lol.

If a player won an MVP, they won an MVP. There is not a single player on that entire list that anyone would not consider a generational talent. This is cherry picking at its finest.

My point was that you excluding Jokic and Giannis as outliers was rediculous. I made a less rediculous claim than yours (that multiple MVPs should only be considered, and that present data is more applicable i.e. use the last 20 yrs only), and you called it rediculous.

I'm trying to point out that you clearly have a bias that isn't allowing you to see reality. You don't need to tank to get an MVP. Your oversimplifying a very complex system.

I called them outliers, because they quite literally are. In the last forty years there have been three MVPs that were picked 15th or later. That is the text book definition of an outlier. Especially when you take Jokic into account who is the only player to ever come from the 2nd round be an MVP.

I'm not discounting them, I'm simply stating that using them as an example of what you can expect and plan around, is like claiming winning the lottery is your retirement plan, because some people have won it in the past.

And you honestly think, that stating players like Shaq and Hakeem are not generational talents, because they only won a single MVP, is LESS ridiculous, than stating that Giannis and Jokic are statistical outliers?

What in the absolute **** am I reading lol

Shifting goalposts…

[Duffman100]

Conclusion - Kyle Lowry is one of the most underrated NBA players of all time.

Lowry is obviously the GROAT, but we can't discredit Derozan. Him and Lowry where an amazing 1-2 punch and lead the most amazing run in Raptors history.

Derozan alongside Lowry brought legitimacy to our franchise. Both players will get their numbers retired.

Derozan and JV get a massive amount of credit for the constant 50+ win seasons. They were great RS players would could lift a team's floor, take a bulk of minutes, play a lot of games and absorb a lot of touches.

Just that they had flaws that were exposed in the playoffs.

[deck]

Playoff appearances don't equate to success IMO

Sent from my LG-H873 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Really depends on what your baseline is. I think we Raptors fans have higher expectations now than we did 15 years ago.

But regardless of what we declare as success, making the playoffs / winning more games than we lose definitely increases the value of the players on the team, which is always a good thing.

[billy_hoyle]

What lol? I took 30 years of MVP winners and the result was that 70% of the winners, were selected in the top 5. Based on your argument, any player that has won less than 2 MVP trophies is an outlier? Do you not understand how ridiculous that sounds?

We should ignore Hakeem, who is one of the greatest centres in the history of the NBA, because he only won a single MVP trophy? Or Shaq? This might be one of the worst takes I've ever heard lol.

If a player won an MVP, they won an MVP. There is not a single player on that entire list that anyone would not consider a generational talent. This is cherry picking at its finest.

My point was that you excluding Jokic and Giannis as outliers was rediculous. I made a less rediculous claim than yours (that multiple MVPs should only be considered, and that present data is more applicable i.e. use the last 20 yrs only), and you called it rediculous.

I'm trying to point out that you clearly have a bias that isn't allowing you to see reality. You don't need to tank to get an MVP. Your oversimplifying a very complex system.

I called them outliers, because they quite literally are. In the last forty years there have been three MVPs that were picked 15th or later. That is the text book definition of an outlier. Especially when you take Jokic into account who is the only player to ever come from the 2nd round be an MVP.

I'm not discounting them, I'm simply stating that using them as an example of what you can expect and plan around, is like claiming winning the lottery is your retirement plan, because some people have won it in the past.

And you honestly think, that stating players like Shaq and Hakeem are not generational talents, because they only won a single MVP, is LESS ridiculous, than stating that Giannis and Jokic are statistical outliers?

What in the absolute **** am I reading lol

As an aside, 'Generational Player' is a bit contentious right.

Generational IMO means 'once a generation', or the best player of their generation.

Hakeem and MJ were both famously drafted in 1984. The only time Hakeem even won an MVP was when MJ played baseball in 94. Therefore, Hakeem was objectively not generational, and my multiple MVP award filter actually agrees with that conclusion (obviously MJ and his 6 MVPs during their overlapping reign was indicative of who the generations true best player was).

Shaq is another guy bookended by MJ and the rise of Duncan. I'd call Duncan the generational player for that particular cohort, although Shaq has a claim. This era was followed up by Lebron... then Curry, and now we are in the Giannis and Joker era, both guys are trying to make a claim as generational.

Feel free to disagree.

[OakleyDokely]

I think you also need to factor in the wave of new talent coming into the league over the last decade or two. In the Bird, Magic, MJ generation, the league was almost entirely made up of US born NCAA players. Now, you have players from all over the world being drafted, making the drafts a lot deeper in terms of talent. There's a very strong European developmental system that's now pumping out a lot of very good talent.

Below were the top 10 players in MVP voting last year. 5/10 were born outside the US and 6/10 were drafted outside the top 10. Now, more than ever, you can uncover gems later in the draft, which makes scouting and developing even more important.

Embiid, Cameroon, 3rd pick
Jokic, Serbia, 41st pick
Giannis, Greece, 15th pick
Tatum, USA, 3rd pick
SGA, Canada, 11th pick
Mitchell, USA, 13th pick
Sabonis, USA, 11th pick
Doncic, Slovenia, 3rd pick
Curry, USA, 7th pick
Butler, USA, 30th pick

[YogurtProducer]

I think you also need to factor in the wave of new talent coming into the league over the last decade or two. In the Bird, Magic, MJ generation, the league was almost entirely made up of US born NCAA players. Now, you have players from all over the world being drafted, making the drafts a lot deeper in terms of talent. There's a very strong European developmental system that's now pumping out a lot of very good talent.

Below were the top 10 players in MVP voting last year. 5/10 were born outside the US and 6/10 were drafted outside the top 10. Now, more than ever, you can uncover gems later in the draft, which makes scouting and developing even more important.

Embiid, Cameroon, 3rd pick
Jokic, Serbia, 41st pick
Giannis, Greece, 15th pick
Tatum, USA, 3rd pick
SGA, Canada, 11th pick
Mitchell, USA, 13th pick
Sabonis, USA, 11th pick
Doncic, Slovenia, 3rd pick
Curry, USA, 7th pick
Butler, USA, 30th pick

And not 1 #1 pick which is actually mind blowing.

Drafting nowadays is also a little more difficult. Back in the day you were drafting 21/22 year old seniors. Now the top 5 is 19 year olds kids. The randomness of the draft just from that increases the variability.

[OakleyDokely]

I think you also need to factor in the wave of new talent coming into the league over the last decade or two. In the Bird, Magic, MJ generation, the league was almost entirely made up of US born NCAA players. Now, you have players from all over the world being drafted, making the drafts a lot deeper in terms of talent. There's a very strong European developmental system that's now pumping out a lot of very good talent.

Below were the top 10 players in MVP voting last year. 5/10 were born outside the US and 6/10 were drafted outside the top 10. Now, more than ever, you can uncover gems later in the draft, which makes scouting and developing even more important.

Embiid, Cameroon, 3rd pick
Jokic, Serbia, 41st pick
Giannis, Greece, 15th pick
Tatum, USA, 3rd pick
SGA, Canada, 11th pick
Mitchell, USA, 13th pick
Sabonis, USA, 11th pick
Doncic, Slovenia, 3rd pick
Curry, USA, 7th pick
Butler, USA, 30th pick

And not 1 #1 pick which is actually mind blowing.

Drafting nowadays is also a little more difficult. Back in the day you were drafting 21/22 year old seniors. Now the top 5 is 19 year olds kids. The randomness of the draft just from that increases the variability.

ya, you're betting on the person as much as the skill when you're taking a teenager that earlier.

I think there's going to be more opportunities now in the late lottery / mid 1st as juniors, seniors get pushed down the draft order because more teams are willing to gamble on the potential of all the 18/19 year old talent in the NCAA and abroad.

[Scase]

My point was that you excluding Jokic and Giannis as outliers was rediculous. I made a less rediculous claim than yours (that multiple MVPs should only be considered, and that present data is more applicable i.e. use the last 20 yrs only), and you called it rediculous.

I'm trying to point out that you clearly have a bias that isn't allowing you to see reality. You don't need to tank to get an MVP. Your oversimplifying a very complex system.

I called them outliers, because they quite literally are. In the last forty years there have been three MVPs that were picked 15th or later. That is the text book definition of an outlier. Especially when you take Jokic into account who is the only player to ever come from the 2nd round be an MVP.

I'm not discounting them, I'm simply stating that using them as an example of what you can expect and plan around, is like claiming winning the lottery is your retirement plan, because some people have won it in the past.

And you honestly think, that stating players like Shaq and Hakeem are not generational talents, because they only won a single MVP, is LESS ridiculous, than stating that Giannis and Jokic are statistical outliers?

What in the absolute **** am I reading lol

As an aside, 'Generational Player' is a bit contentious right.

Generational IMO means 'once a generation', or the best player of their generation.

Hakeem and MJ were both famously drafted in 1984. The only time Hakeem even won an MVP was when MJ played baseball in 94. Therefore, Hakeem was objectively not generational, and my multiple MVP award filter actually agrees with that conclusion (obviously MJ and his 6 MVPs during their overlapping reign was indicative of who the generations true best player was).

Shaq is another guy bookended by MJ and the rise of Duncan. I'd call Duncan the generational player for that particular cohort, although Shaq has a claim. This era was followed up by Lebron... then Curry, and now we are in the Giannis and Joker era, both guys are trying to make a claim as generational.

Feel free to disagree.

So you state that "generational player" is a contentious word to define, and that your own interpretation of it is a once in a generation player/best in their generation. But then a sentence later stats that Hakeem is objectively not generational? Those conflict.

The NBA is like 75 years old man, if we are talking LITERAL generations, that means there have been 2-3 generational players in NBA history, as a generation is defined as a 20-30 year gap. Seems a little strict to me.

Shaq, Hakeem, and Duncan, are 3 of the greatest big men to play in the entire history of the NBA. Very few, if any people, would say the generational tag does not apply to all 3 of them. I feel like you're trying to be hyper restrictive and specific about what a generational talent is, and that's fine if that is your interpretation of it.

The OP used the term generational, hence it being continued here. I would gladly replace it with superstar, but again, that title is up for interpretation as well. The point remains the same, 70% of the MVP winners, were picked 5th or higher. No arguing the semantics about the word generational changes that.

My point was that you excluding Jokic and Giannis as outliers was rediculous. I made a less rediculous claim than yours (that multiple MVPs should only be considered, and that present data is more applicable i.e. use the last 20 yrs only), and you called it rediculous.

I'm trying to point out that you clearly have a bias that isn't allowing you to see reality. You don't need to tank to get an MVP. Your oversimplifying a very complex system.

I called them outliers, because they quite literally are. In the last forty years there have been three MVPs that were picked 15th or later. That is the text book definition of an outlier. Especially when you take Jokic into account who is the only player to ever come from the 2nd round be an MVP.

I'm not discounting them, I'm simply stating that using them as an example of what you can expect and plan around, is like claiming winning the lottery is your retirement plan, because some people have won it in the past.

And you honestly think, that stating players like Shaq and Hakeem are not generational talents, because they only won a single MVP, is LESS ridiculous, than stating that Giannis and Jokic are statistical outliers?

What in the absolute **** am I reading lol

Shifting goalposts…

I hope you aren't suggesting I am the one shifting the goalposts here? My stance has not changed even a bit.

[billy_hoyle]

I called them outliers, because they quite literally are. In the last forty years there have been three MVPs that were picked 15th or later. That is the text book definition of an outlier. Especially when you take Jokic into account who is the only player to ever come from the 2nd round be an MVP.

I'm not discounting them, I'm simply stating that using them as an example of what you can expect and plan around, is like claiming winning the lottery is your retirement plan, because some people have won it in the past.

And you honestly think, that stating players like Shaq and Hakeem are not generational talents, because they only won a single MVP, is LESS ridiculous, than stating that Giannis and Jokic are statistical outliers?

What in the absolute **** am I reading lol

As an aside, 'Generational Player' is a bit contentious right.

Generational IMO means 'once a generation', or the best player of their generation.

Hakeem and MJ were both famously drafted in 1984. The only time Hakeem even won an MVP was when MJ played baseball in 94. Therefore, Hakeem was objectively not generational, and my multiple MVP award filter actually agrees with that conclusion (obviously MJ and his 6 MVPs during their overlapping reign was indicative of who the generations true best player was).

Shaq is another guy bookended by MJ and the rise of Duncan. I'd call Duncan the generational player for that particular cohort, although Shaq has a claim. This era was followed up by Lebron... then Curry, and now we are in the Giannis and Joker era, both guys are trying to make a claim as generational.

Feel free to disagree.

So you state that "generational player" is a contentious word to define, and that your own interpretation of it is a once in a generation player/best in their generation. But then a sentence later stats that Hakeem is objectively not generational? Those conflict.

The NBA is like 75 years old man, if we are talking LITERAL generations, that means there have been 2-3 generational players in NBA history, as a generation is defined as a 20-30 year gap. Seems a little strict to me.

Shaq, Hakeem, and Duncan, are 3 of the greatest big men to play in the entire history of the NBA. Very few, if any people, would say the generational tag does not apply to all 3 of them. I feel like you're trying to be hyper restrictive and specific about what a generational talent is, and that's fine if that is your interpretation of it.

The OP used the term generational, hence it being continued here. I would gladly replace it with superstar, but again, that title is up for interpretation as well. The point remains the same, 70% of the MVP winners, were picked 5th or higher. No arguing the semantics about the word generational changes that.

I called them outliers, because they quite literally are. In the last forty years there have been three MVPs that were picked 15th or later. That is the text book definition of an outlier. Especially when you take Jokic into account who is the only player to ever come from the 2nd round be an MVP.

I'm not discounting them, I'm simply stating that using them as an example of what you can expect and plan around, is like claiming winning the lottery is your retirement plan, because some people have won it in the past.

And you honestly think, that stating players like Shaq and Hakeem are not generational talents, because they only won a single MVP, is LESS ridiculous, than stating that Giannis and Jokic are statistical outliers?

What in the absolute **** am I reading lol

Shifting goalposts…

I hope you aren't suggesting I am the one shifting the goalposts here? My stance has not changed even a bit.

No it's not contradictory when I define what I mean by generational in the previous sentences. My point is self consistent (Hakeem can't be generational when he is directly mapped to MJ).

Generational has different definitions. The one you posted - related to familiar descent is one, I'm using a different definition here:
Definition: all of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively.
Example: "one of his generation's finest songwriters"

So, in this case, generational is essentially players with similiar prime years... So typically 5-7 yrs. Hakeem and MJ directly overlapping and actually being drafted in the same year makes for an objectively easy generational determination. Shaq's prime is different, his prime coincided with the falloff of MJ and before the rise of Duncan, hence it's difficult to say who his contemporaries truely were.

The definitions, the context and the subjectivity with respect to who's better between different positions, considering team strength etc make the debate contentious.

[mieshpal]

TLDR: You either need to be a free agent destination or tank hard to draft elite players. We are trying to reinvent the wheel leading to being on a treadmill.

This team seems to be taking a new direction. Let's see how it pans out. It's not like they are old now. Tanking hard doesn't always mean u get elite players, look at Charlotte, sac, Knicks, Philly, det, Washington, houstpn. Those teams haven't won ****, yes some of the teams have some good players, but raps also have some assets as well and. I don't think there is a set formula to winning tanking could be the right play when the draft is deep and you land a Wemby or a LeBron. Hell yes, its worth it, but many times the lotto can still be a crap shot and teams need to know how to build culture and develop talent and a team

Sent from my Pixel 8 using RealGM mobile app