Do you agree with hinkie's rebuild plan for the sixers?

[BullyKing]

Imo, if you want to make a case that Hinkie's strategy is bad, you should be able to present a better strategy, not just point out why Hinkie's strategy isn't perfect.

I just want to comment on this point, which seems to come up a lot. That's kind of a circular argument, because to Hinkie supporters that strategy is the best possible one anyway.

Hinkie's strategy not being perfect isn't an argument at all, because no one disagrees.

Instead, I'd point to the 29 other teams who aren't employing Hinkie's strategy. If Hinkie doesn't produce an outcome superior to the 29 other teams at some point in time, wouldn't that mean that his strategy wasn't the best after all?

No, it wouldn't. And yes, the reason is luck. And even if it would, you don't know the outcome yet, so it doesn't matter for this thread at all.

And yes I know that luck, etc plays a huge part in teams' successes, which calls to question why Hinkie is spending so much effort optimizing those slim odds anyway.

To answer that question: It's his job.

It's not luck at all though. Really the only team you could point as having started their rebuild around the same time as the Sixers and sort of more successful than the Sixers already is the Wolves. And yes, luck was involved in ping pong balls (mostly on the Cleveland pick). But the more fundamental point is that the Wolves had Kevin Love to trade - an asset way more valuable than the collective assets Hinkie inherited.

[winter_mute_13]

Hinkie's strategy not being perfect isn't an argument at all, because no one disagrees.

Well, I would say there are people who disagree, hence these threads. I don't really want to re-hash these arguments though, since it obviously won't change anyone's minds.

[winter_mute_13]

That logic assumes that everyone was at the same starting point, which obviously wasn't the case.

And it's a perfectly valid question. The only people Hinkie inherited who really had any value were Jrue and Thad. Since Jrue was traded for the equivalent of first round picks the Sixers already owed to others, they were basically one Thad Young away from being an expansion team.

Re same starting point, yes you are right. But I only said "at some point in time". Teams go up and down. At this point there are teams who are worst than the Sixers than when they started the "process". So logically the Sixers should be ahead of them right? Or if not now, then at some point.

Actually, the team I was thinking of is the Bucks. The poster child for the treadmill of mediocrity. I can't remember what their roster was exactly 3 years ago but it shouldn't be very far from Jrue Holiday/Thad Young Sixers, but I could be wrong. I'm one of those who think the Bucks' future looks brighter right now than the Sixers', but again I'm sure there are people who disagree.

[Knosh]

Hinkie's strategy not being perfect isn't an argument at all, because no one disagrees.

Well, I would say there are people who disagree, hence these threads. I don't really want to re-hash these arguments though, since it obviously won't change anyone's minds.

It's just not what this thread is about and I didn't see anyone saying that.

[mtron929]

Imo, if you want to make a case that Hinkie's strategy is bad, you should be able to present a better strategy, not just point out why Hinkie's strategy isn't perfect.

I just want to comment on this point, which seems to come up a lot. That's kind of a circular argument, because to Hinkie supporters that strategy is the best possible one anyway.

Instead, I'd point to the 29 other teams who aren't employing Hinkie's strategy. If Hinkie doesn't produce an outcome superior to the 29 other teams at some point in time, wouldn't that mean that his strategy wasn't the best after all? And yes I know that luck, etc plays a huge part in teams' successes, which calls to question why Hinkie is spending so much effort optimizing those slim odds anyway.

This isn't true. Let's think about it this way. If your team's chance of winning a championship in the next 10 years is about 3%. Heinke can tank for couple of years and try to procure a superstar that would enhance the chance of winning championship to 8% (whereas the status quo is 3%). In both cases, the chances of winning a championship is slim (3 vs 8%). But only an irrational person would think that these chances are pretty much the same just because in both cases, they are small.

[mtron929]

I actually have an opposite problem with regards to Philly's approach as to others. That is, I think they should have sucked even more. It is pretty asinine that somehow they did not end up with the worst record last year. If you are tanking and tanking shamelessly, make sure that you have the worst record in the NBA.

[winter_mute_13]

This isn't true. Let's think about it this way. If your team's chance of winning a championship in the next 10 years is about 3%. Heinke can tank for couple of years and try to procure a superstar that would enhance the chance of winning championship to 8% (whereas the status quo is 3%). In both cases, the chances of winning a championship is slim (3 vs 8%). But only an irrational person would think that these chances are pretty much the same just because in both cases, they are small.

Mathematically, they aren't the same. In the real world though, most people would probably work with the scenario that has 90+% probability of happening. Good for Hinkie though that he wants to gamble.

[BullyKing]

That logic assumes that everyone was at the same starting point, which obviously wasn't the case.

And it's a perfectly valid question. The only people Hinkie inherited who really had any value were Jrue and Thad. Since Jrue was traded for the equivalent of first round picks the Sixers already owed to others, they were basically one Thad Young away from being an expansion team.

Re same starting point, yes you are right. But I only said "at some point in time". Teams go up and down. At this point there are teams who are worst than the Sixers than when they started the "process". So logically the Sixers should be ahead of them right? Or if not now, then at some point.

Actually, the team I was thinking of is the Bucks. The poster child for the treadmill of mediocrity. I can't remember what their roster was exactly 3 years ago but it shouldn't be very far from Jrue Holiday/Thad Young Sixers, but I could be wrong. I'm one of those who think the Bucks' future looks brighter right now than the Sixers', but again I'm sure there are people who disagree.

Bucks are a decent counterpoint but hard to judge how much better a situation they were in 3 years ago. I think they owned all of their draft picks so that's a "better" start. What makes it tough is that they also had Brandon Jennings, which in retrospect sounds like nothing but at the time they were able to trade him for Middleton/Knight. It's hard to remember how much a real asset Jennings was at the time Hinkie took over vs. just total kudos to the Bucks for a terrific trade.

[Knosh]

It's not luck at all though. Really the only team you could point as having started their rebuild around the same time as the Sixers and sort of more successful than the Sixers already is the Wolves. And yes, luck was involved in ping pong balls (mostly on the Cleveland pick). But the more fundamental point is that the Wolves had Kevin Love to trade - an asset way more valuable than the collective assets Hinkie inherited.

What do you mean by success? How are the Wolves more successful than the Sixers?

[BullyKing]

It's not luck at all though. Really the only team you could point as having started their rebuild around the same time as the Sixers and sort of more successful than the Sixers already is the Wolves. And yes, luck was involved in ping pong balls (mostly on the Cleveland pick). But the more fundamental point is that the Wolves had Kevin Love to trade - an asset way more valuable than the collective assets Hinkie inherited.

What do you mean by success? How are the Wolves more successful than the Sixers?

By success, I really only mean perceived to be farther along in their rebuild (although much of that is mostly the linear vs. non-linear debate you often see about the Sixers and Magic).

[mtron929]

This isn't true. Let's think about it this way. If your team's chance of winning a championship in the next 10 years is about 3%. Heinke can tank for couple of years and try to procure a superstar that would enhance the chance of winning championship to 8% (whereas the status quo is 3%). In both cases, the chances of winning a championship is slim (3 vs 8%). But only an irrational person would think that these chances are pretty much the same just because in both cases, they are small.

Mathematically, they aren't the same. In the real world though, most people would probably work with the scenario that has 90+% probability of happening. Good for Hinkie though that he wants to gamble.

If you want to win a championship, what strategy provides you 90+% chance of winning? None. All strategies are long shots. Some (e.g. toiling away in mediocrity as 7th 8th seed) are worse than others.

[winter_mute_13]

If you want to win a championship, what strategy provides you 90+% chance of winning? None. All strategies are long shots. Some (e.g. toiling away in mediocrity as 7th 8th seed) are worse than others.

True enough. Though I think you're unfairly maligning the 7th/8th seeds. Some low seeds go on to be high seeds and some even win a title. There's more than one way to win a championship, though admittedly those that don't depend on LeBron/TD/Shaq etc are much rarer.

[Knosh]

It's not luck at all though. Really the only team you could point as having started their rebuild around the same time as the Sixers and sort of more successful than the Sixers already is the Wolves. And yes, luck was involved in ping pong balls (mostly on the Cleveland pick). But the more fundamental point is that the Wolves had Kevin Love to trade - an asset way more valuable than the collective assets Hinkie inherited.

What do you mean by success? How are the Wolves more successful than the Sixers?

By success, I really only mean perceived to be farther along in their rebuild (although much of that is mostly the linear vs. non-linear debate you often see about the Sixers and Magic).

Winter Mute suggested judging the strategy by the outcome, not by someone's subjective perception. That's where luck comes into play.

[mtron929]

If you want to win a championship, what strategy provides you 90+% chance of winning? None. All strategies are long shots. Some (e.g. toiling away in mediocrity as 7th 8th seed) are worse than others.

True enough. Though I think you're unfairly maligning the 7th/8th seeds. Some low seeds go on to be high seeds and some even win a title. There's more than one way to win a championship, though admittedly those that don't depend on LeBron/TD/Shaq etc are much rarer.

Well, I am perfectly fine if the owner/fans are content with putting a competitive team out there each year without having the lofty goal of championship or bust. Apparently, the Sixers want to win the whole thing and nothing else matters. With that mandate, the easiest way to do this is to get lucky in the draft and to enhance your luck you need a lot of high lottery picks. And the Sixers are currently the best in the league at procuring these.

[mtron929]

It is unfair to judge the strategy soley by outcome. This is akin to telling someone in holdem poker that they should not have gone all in pre-flop with pocket aces because their aces go cracked by someone with 7 9 offsuit.

[winter_mute_13]

It is unfair to judge the strategy soley by outcome. This is akin to telling someone in holdem poker that they should not have gone all in pre-flop with pocket aces because their aces go cracked by someone with 7 9 offsuit.

I'm not familiar with poker, but I assume that following that strategy will win 9 times out of 10.

If Hinkie's strategy isn't expected to produce an outcome better than the baseline... then why do it? I don't mean to troll, but if the odds are really 8% vs 3% as you suggested earlier, then given the likely sample size there is functionally no difference.

Try it out yourself with dice or a random number generator... how many samples do you need before you can perceive a difference between 8% and 3%?

[mtron929]

It is unfair to judge the strategy soley by outcome. This is akin to telling someone in holdem poker that they should not have gone all in pre-flop with pocket aces because their aces go cracked by someone with 7 9 offsuit.

I'm not familiar with poker, but I assume that following that strategy will win 9 times out of 10.

If Hinkie's strategy isn't expected to produce an outcome better than the baseline... then why do it? I don't mean to troll, but if the odds are really 8% vs 3% as you suggested earlier, then given the likely sample size there is functionally no difference.

Try it out yourself with dice or a random number generator... how many samples do you need before you can perceive a difference between 8% and 3%?

By definition, 8% likelihood is expected to produce a better outcome than a 3% likelihood. The random number generator experiment is unnecessary because the expectation is 8% in 10 years vs 3% in 10 years as defined by the problem. I don't see how this is even debatable.

[mtron929]

Btw, 3 vs 8% was some number I just made up to prove my point. If I were to evaluate the Sixer's chances of winning at least one championship in the next 10 years, I would estimate it at around 30%. My math goes something like this.

- I think the first 3 years, they have pretty much close to zero% chance of winning.
- Given that I think few of their high lottery future picks as well as couple of their current players will pan out, I think on average, they will be a top 6-7 team in the next 7 years. And thus each year, I give them around 5% of chance of winning.
- So in 7 years, that would amount to 1 - 0.95^7 = 0.3 -> 30%.

[winter_mute_13]

Btw, 3 vs 8% was some number I just made up to prove my point. If I were to evaluate the Sixer's chances of winning at least one championship in the next 10 years, I would estimate it at around 30%. My math goes something like this.

- I think the first 3 years, they have pretty much close to zero% chance of winning.
- Given that I think few of their high lottery future picks as well as couple of their current players will pan out, I think on average, they will be a top 6-7 team in the next 7 years. And thus each year, I give them around 5% of chance of winning.
- So in 7 years, that would amount to 1 - 0.95^7 = 0.3 -> 30%.

Thanks for that. I'm ok with someone praising Hinkie's strategy as long as there are solid expectations to go along with it.

So if I read that correctly, the first milestone is that you expect them to be at least somewhat competitive by year 4, i.e. next season? That seems a tad optimistic to me but at least by this time next year we'll have a good idea whether it can be met or not.

[azwfan]

Btw, 3 vs 8% was some number I just made up to prove my point. If I were to evaluate the Sixer's chances of winning at least one championship in the next 10 years, I would estimate it at around 30%. My math goes something like this.

- I think the first 3 years, they have pretty much close to zero% chance of winning.
- Given that I think few of their high lottery future picks as well as couple of their current players will pan out, I think on average, they will be a top 6-7 team in the next 7 years. And thus each year, I give them around 5% of chance of winning.
- So in 7 years, that would amount to 1 - 0.95^7 = 0.3 -> 30%.

I'd say the chances are much much lower than you do. The Pelicans already have one of these all world, generational talents, and have had him for several years (development). Vegas has their odds of winning this year at 45/1 (2%). Now odds certainly isnt the same as "chance of winning", as they are trying to balance bets, but i would say the Pelicans chances of winning a title in the next 10 years is less than 30% and they already got their guy.

This is Blake Griffin's 6th year. He's had one of the best PGs in the game for the past 3 years or so... they still havent won it (although they are a contender) and their odds are less than 10%. It just isn't as easy as getting a great talent. The talent needs to develop and you need to put pieces around that talent with coaching... and you are competing with other teams who are trying to do the same thing.

I will say this for the strategy. I think at its simplest, "you need an elite player to win a championship" and "getting an elite player is the most difficult thing to do" and "the best way to acquire elite players is through high draft picks"... then this initial strategy makes perfect logical sense. i just dont think its as likely for success as you (30%). I think they have about 30% of getting one of these great players in the next 10 years. There isn't a great player every draft... and those great players don't always look like great players when they are drafted. And getting one doesnt guarantee a title, it basically puts you in "contender" range... and even if you get one and eventually win one there's no guarantee it happens in the stated timeframe. I mean Dirk Nowitski was drafted in 1998, did not look like a great player at time of the draft (not top 3 pick). 13 years later he brought home the title. The Cleveland Cavs drafted Lebron James, one of the greatest of all time, he took them to a bunch of finals and then went somewhere else to win his titles. Its been 12 years since they drafted him. It just isn't easy.