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

[Knosh]

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%?

I don't mean to troll either, but if the odds are really 8% vs 3%, then why not go for the 8% over the 3%?

[winter_mute_13]

I don't mean to troll either, but if the odds are really 8% vs 3%, then why not go for the 8% over the 3%?

Because it makes no practical difference unless you have a sufficiently large sample size. For example, if 50 teams did the 8% strategy vs 50 teams doing the 5% strategy, then you expect 4 teams to succeed in the first case and 2.5 teams in the second. (None of that says anything about whether your team is among the lucky 4 though).

If just one team is doing it though... the variability is huge enough that your expected result is the same. Basically it's 0.08 teams succeed vs 0.03 using the assumed percentages, both of which are basically 0.

Dunno, maybe I'm taking the wrong statistical view on it. Hinkie is a lot smarter than I am, and he apparently thinks it's worth doing. Assuming he chose this strategy in good faith anyway. We'll see if he's right.

[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%.

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.

Nope. I meant the next 10 years. So if this was year 1.

[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%.

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.

Couple of things.

1. I think the Pelicans chances of winning a title will go up quite a bit in the next 5-6 years as I put the 2% at the minimum of their range in the next few years with them probably peaking at around 20-30% in some of these years. Remember it just takes one great team in a given year to reach 30% for just that one year. So you are considerably underestimating the Pelicans chances of winning one in the next 10 years.

2. I never said it is easy for plenty of other teams that are already decent (e.g. Toronto, Phoenix, Atlanta), I would put the percentage much lower than 30% (at least with their current strategy assumed to be in tact). I really like how the Sixers are going to get bunch of lottery picks the next 2 years (probably 4-5) on top of the two good young guys that they have plus the wildcard in Embiid. So I expect them to be the 5th 6th seed four years from now. That puts them at around 2-3% odd at winning the whole thing and then I surmise that there will be additional uptick with many of their young players all entering their prime. Again, getting back to point #1, all it takes is couple of years of really solid team and the probability of 30% seem reasonable.

[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%.

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.

Couple of things.

1. I think the Pelicans chances of winning a title will go up quite a bit in the next 5-6 years as I put the 2% at the minimum of their range in the next few years with them probably peaking at around 20-30% in some of these years. Remember it just takes one great team in a given year to reach 30% for just that one year. So you are considerably underestimating the Pelicans chances of winning one in the next 10 years.

2. I never said it is easy for plenty of other teams that are already decent (e.g. Toronto, Phoenix, Atlanta), I would put the percentage much lower than 30% (at least with their current strategy assumed to be in tact). I really like how the Sixers are going to get bunch of lottery picks the next 2 years (probably 4-5) on top of the two good young guys that they have plus the wildcard in Embiid. So I expect them to be the 5th 6th seed four years from now. That puts them at around 2-3% odd at winning the whole thing and then I surmise that there will be additional uptick with many of their young players all entering their prime. Again, getting back to point #1, all it takes is couple of years of really solid team and the probability of 30% seem reasonable.

Rephrasing this in another way, do you think that the Pelicans would get to the Finals at least once in the next 10 years? The assumption here is that if they get to the Finals, then the chances of them winning the Finals would be somewhere between 30-70%. So if you would think that the Pelicans would get to the Finals at least once in the next 10 years ,you are at least giving them 30% (the lower end) of winning a championship in the next 10 years.

[Knosh]

I don't mean to troll either, but if the odds are really 8% vs 3%, then why not go for the 8% over the 3%?

Because it makes no practical difference unless you have a sufficiently large sample size. For example, if 50 teams did the 8% strategy vs 50 teams doing the 5% strategy, then you expect 4 teams to succeed in the first case and 2.5 teams in the second. (None of that says anything about whether your team is among the lucky 4 though).

If just one team is doing it though... the variability is huge enough that your expected result is the same. Basically it's 0.08 teams succeed vs 0.03 using the assumed percentages, both of which are basically 0.

Dunno, maybe I'm taking the wrong statistical view on it. Hinkie is a lot smarter than I am, and he apparently thinks it's worth doing. Assuming he chose this strategy in good faith anyway. We'll see if he's right.

Well you are basically rounding down and concluding that it's the same, but it isn't the same before rounding down.

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I think you are implying that there is some downside to the 8% strategy vs. the 3% strategy in case of failure. And that the trade off between the gain in success rate and the downside in case of failure isn't worth it.

[Clyde Frazier]

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.

It's hard for me to tell if you're being tongue in cheek, but you realize that isn't possible, right? Tanking comes from an ownership / managerial decision. The coach and players are always trying to win games.

[youOK]

I don't mean to troll either, but if the odds are really 8% vs 3%, then why not go for the 8% over the 3%?

Because it makes no practical difference unless you have a sufficiently large sample size. For example, if 50 teams did the 8% strategy vs 50 teams doing the 5% strategy, then you expect 4 teams to succeed in the first case and 2.5 teams in the second. (None of that says anything about whether your team is among the lucky 4 though).

If just one team is doing it though... the variability is huge enough that your expected result is the same. Basically it's 0.08 teams succeed vs 0.03 using the assumed percentages, both of which are basically 0.

Dunno, maybe I'm taking the wrong statistical view on it. Hinkie is a lot smarter than I am, and he apparently thinks it's worth doing. Assuming he chose this strategy in good faith anyway. We'll see if he's right.

Well you are basically rounding down and concluding that it's the same, but it isn't the same before rounding down.

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I think you are implying that there is some downside to the 8% strategy vs. the 3% strategy in case of failure. And that the trade off between the gain in success rate and the downside in case of failure isn't worth it.

I think this only applies if you assume the sixers are built on a championship or bust mentality. Everyone knows how tough it is to win a championship, I don't think Hinkie is so naive that he feels that this will net them a championship for sure. In my opinion this is the best way in his mind to set them up for sustained success.

Keep in mind the sixers probably had the least amount of assets in the league when Hinkie took over. The failure with Bynum destroyed their assets and pretty much forced them into a rebuild.

If they had a Cousins/Davis/Griffin type player to build around I'm sure their strategy would be different. Until they get someone who looks like they can take that leap I see no reason to sign mid-tier complimentary players to try to make the playoffs.

If they draft someone who looks like they could be that player expect them to sign value players to try to fill out their roster to maximize the games they can win.

However you look at it the Holiday trade was a win for the sixers. Noel has actually played more regular season games the past two years than Jrue has.

Look if he trades away Noel/Okafor for more draft picks then I'll recant what I said and agree that it just looks like they are going through a never ending process but I feel like with only two years we haven't given it enough time to fully appreciate what his vision is going to look like.

[winter_mute_13]

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I think you are implying that there is some downside to the 8% strategy vs. the 3% strategy in case of failure. And that the trade off between the gain in success rate and the downside in case of failure isn't worth it.

Yes, exactly.

Look if he trades away Noel/Okafor for more draft picks then I'll recant what I said and agree that it just looks like they are going through a never ending process but I feel like with only two years we haven't given it enough time to fully appreciate what his vision is going to look like.

Fair enough. I agree that what happens with Noel would be very telling. He doesn't look like he'll be a star, but he's the sort of useful young player most franchises wouldn't hesitate to lock up.

[Curmudgeon]

Fair enough. I agree that what happens with Noel would be very telling. He doesn't look like he'll be a star, but he's the sort of useful young player most franchises wouldn't hesitate to lock up.

Isn't that the way Sixers fans used to feel about Michael Carter-Williams?

[bondom34]

Fair enough. I agree that what happens with Noel would be very telling. He doesn't look like he'll be a star, but he's the sort of useful young player most franchises wouldn't hesitate to lock up.

Isn't that the way Sixers fans used to feel about Michael Carter-Williams?

Not by my memory. They knew he was a volume stats on bad efficiency guy who was an older prospect. Noel isn't that at all.

[winter_mute_13]

I think Noel is a better player/prospect than MCW. But more than that, it would establish a pattern. MCW alone may be a one-off, but if Noel goes too then it's starting to stretch credulity.

[Knosh]

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I think you are implying that there is some downside to the 8% strategy vs. the 3% strategy in case of failure. And that the trade off between the gain in success rate and the downside in case of failure isn't worth it.

Yes, exactly.

Look if he trades away Noel/Okafor for more draft picks then I'll recant what I said and agree that it just looks like they are going through a never ending process but I feel like with only two years we haven't given it enough time to fully appreciate what his vision is going to look like.

Fair enough. I agree that what happens with Noel would be very telling. He doesn't look like he'll be a star, but he's the sort of useful young player most franchises wouldn't hesitate to lock up.

But then that's really a question of preferences. How much should you value a chance at actually contending vs. just making the playoffs. I don't think that's Hinkie's job.

[azwfan]

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.

Couple of things.

1. I think the Pelicans chances of winning a title will go up quite a bit in the next 5-6 years as I put the 2% at the minimum of their range in the next few years with them probably peaking at around 20-30% in some of these years. Remember it just takes one great team in a given year to reach 30% for just that one year. So you are considerably underestimating the Pelicans chances of winning one in the next 10 years.

2. I never said it is easy for plenty of other teams that are already decent (e.g. Toronto, Phoenix, Atlanta), I would put the percentage much lower than 30% (at least with their current strategy assumed to be in tact). I really like how the Sixers are going to get bunch of lottery picks the next 2 years (probably 4-5) on top of the two good young guys that they have plus the wildcard in Embiid. So I expect them to be the 5th 6th seed four years from now. That puts them at around 2-3% odd at winning the whole thing and then I surmise that there will be additional uptick with many of their young players all entering their prime. Again, getting back to point #1, all it takes is couple of years of really solid team and the probability of 30% seem reasonable.

Rephrasing this in another way, do you think that the Pelicans would get to the Finals at least once in the next 10 years? The assumption here is that if they get to the Finals, then the chances of them winning the Finals would be somewhere between 30-70%. So if you would think that the Pelicans would get to the Finals at least once in the next 10 years ,you are at least giving them 30% (the lower end) of winning a championship in the next 10 years.

I think the Pelicans COULD make it to the finals in the next 10 years. But i don't think its a foregone conclusion... not enough to rate their chances of making the finals once in the next 10 years at 100%... or even at 50%. I'd give them a decent chance to make it to the WCF over that time period. About the only teams you could give those kinds of odds to are teams that are already title contenders. There are a ton of variables beyond the next few years including free agency and probably a newly negotiated CBA to go much beyond that. We can revisit after Philly gets their elite player, but we dont know how many years away even that is from happening so it makes it kind of silly at this point.

[CoreyGallagher]

Fair enough. I agree that what happens with Noel would be very telling. He doesn't look like he'll be a star, but he's the sort of useful young player most franchises wouldn't hesitate to lock up.

Every franchise in the NBA would lock up Noel, you're underrating him.

[spearsy23]

Fair enough. I agree that what happens with Noel would be very telling. He doesn't look like he'll be a star, but he's the sort of useful young player most franchises wouldn't hesitate to lock up.

You're underrating Noel.

I think most people would say it's a fair statement. You can't really be a star and not be useful offensively.

[CoreyGallagher]

Fair enough. I agree that what happens with Noel would be very telling. He doesn't look like he'll be a star, but he's the sort of useful young player most franchises wouldn't hesitate to lock up.

You're underrating Noel.

I think most people would say it's a fair statement. You can't really be a star and not be useful offensively.

He had actually become useful offensively by season's end, his raw stats and metrics had all improved considerably.

By month -

Oct - 2 games,11.2 PER, 87.4 Ortg
Nov -12 games, 10.2 PER, 86.1 Ortg (Ortg from Oct to Nov -1.3) Worse
Dec -13 games, 10.1 PER, 80.1 Ortg ( Ortg from Nov to Dec -6.0) Worse
Jan - 17 games, 15.2 PER, 99.0 Ortg (Ortg from Dec to Jan +18.9) Vast Improvement
Feb - 10 games, 16.1 PER, 103.5 Ortg (Ortg from Jan to Feb +4.5) Improvement
Mar - 17 games, 20.6 PER, 104.4 Ortg (Ortg from Feb to Mar +0.9) Improvement
Apr - 4 games, 18.1 PER, 106.2 Ortg (Ortg from Mar to Apr +1.8) Improvement

I had edited my last post to what specifically I was referring to, but I also believe that his ceiling is higher than most may realize as they're not aware of his improvement. Noel's not some hindrance on offense anymore and he's just going into his sophomore season. Whether he becomes a star, perhaps not likely, but definitely not out of the realm of possibility.

[basketbob]

I think Hinkie is making the most out of a huge market inefficiency in time preference (delayed gratification, patience) in almost all of his moves. I think he's building a dynasty. Since the comparison to GSW was made roughly in the context of 'too many health risks taken' as a criticism of Hinkie, it should be remembered how risky it was to add Bogut's back to Curry's ankles. Nerlens, by the way will be Exhibit A. I think his floor is Al Horford.

[Texas Chuck]

I think Hinkie is making the most out of a huge market inefficiency in time preference (delayed gratification, patience) in almost all of his moves. I think he's building a dynasty. .

???? I don't see any basis at this point for calling them a future dynasty. Slow down.

[winter_mute_13]

???? I don't see any basis at this point for calling them a future dynasty. Slow down.

Indeed.

Fair enough. I agree that what happens with Noel would be very telling. He doesn't look like he'll be a star, but he's the sort of useful young player most franchises wouldn't hesitate to lock up.

Every franchise in the NBA would lock up Noel, you're underrating him.

Um, that's what I said? You just changed my statement from "most" to "every". Funny enough, the Sixers are the one team I am unsure about

A "star" in the context of this thread is that foundational star that Hinkie has made his all-out goal to obtain. I don't think Noel is that guy. Unless you think otherwise, then you should accept there is a possibility that Hinkie would sacrifice a very good young player in order to further his chances at hitting the jackpot. I am not saying he will certainly do so, but Hinkie is the only current GM in the league who I think would consider this move. Some would even call it ballsy.

EDIT: One more point. If both Okafor and Embiid pan out, then there's no way that the Sixers will keep all 3 bigs. Even keeping 2 of them is a stretch, I believe. All I'm saying is, don't get too attached.