Moderators: HiJiNX, niQ, Morris_Shatford, DG88, Reeko, lebron stopper, 7 Footer, Duffman100
Axe Dragon wrote:Why is this thread back? Pretty sure the OP settled on a topic and finished his/her essay 3 years ago.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Treadmill_Team wrote:And there is no debate between MJ and Kobe. I could give you at least 5 players with a better case than Kobe.
konceptonthamic wrote:Hey guys,
So for a class of mine I gotta choose an argumentative essay topic. I definitely want to do something basketball related since I could talk for days about it. So far I got two topic ideas:
Does the "One and Done" rule that applies to basketball players who make the jump from college to the NBA need revisiting?
Now that both have retired, who was the better player? Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan?
If anyone has any other topic ideas let me know!
Thanks
Steelo Green wrote:People are expecting way too much from Barnes out of the get go. He is a project player who will need 2-3 years before he makes a major impact.
ruckus wrote:Axe Dragon wrote:Why is this thread back? Pretty sure the OP settled on a topic and finished his/her essay 3 years ago.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
lol
Holy old topic Batman!
RyderMike wrote:Axe Dragon wrote:Why is this thread back? Pretty sure the OP settled on a topic and finished his/her essay 3 years ago.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Looks like the first recent post is a spam account advertising essay writing. Probably a bot that searches for threads on an education topic, then autoposts its advertisement.
ib4l
this is only correct to a certain degree and to a differing degree in each sport.mdenny wrote:An idea that i've been kicking around in light of the recent jay trades:
Building a successful franchise is moreso a function of locking in longterm efficient contracts rather than talent acquisition.
Talent can always be bought at market value at any given time. It's the team friendly contracts that determine long term success. NOT the acquisition of talent.
The jay trades seem crazy on the surface so i went looking for any sense of what they are doing. Apparently the moves they've made ended up exchanging 8 aggregate years of control for 42. So they are looking at these trades as trades for control years instead of talent (which is why everyone thinks they are crazy).
2 team friendly, long term contracts for mid level talent players are preferable to 2 market value contracts for star players.
team edward wrote:this is only correct to a certain degree and to a differing degree in each sport.mdenny wrote:An idea that i've been kicking around in light of the recent jay trades:
Building a successful franchise is moreso a function of locking in longterm efficient contracts rather than talent acquisition.
Talent can always be bought at market value at any given time. It's the team friendly contracts that determine long term success. NOT the acquisition of talent.
The jay trades seem crazy on the surface so i went looking for any sense of what they are doing. Apparently the moves they've made ended up exchanging 8 aggregate years of control for 42. So they are looking at these trades as trades for control years instead of talent (which is why everyone thinks they are crazy).
2 team friendly, long term contracts for mid level talent players are preferable to 2 market value contracts for star players.
In basketball acquiring talent is very very difficult. You can’t just acquire at any stage because top end talent matters so much more and there is hardly any top end talent.
Once you accept that only top talent really matters, then the key is being able to acquire it:
- draft position / skill / luck
- trade resources
- free agency
Efficient contracts are not necessarily useful as trade resources except I suppose for the Demar trade. Also as they are efficient they eat up cap space so now you can’t sign FA’s.
Double Helix wrote:At what point would tanking become actively damaging to the league itself and how close are we to that point?
The game theory of the NBA is easy. Be as bad as you can be for as long as it takes until the ping pong balls bounce your way to allow for at least 3 superstars in the draft or the assets to acquire 3. Fans in Milwaukee crowdsourced a large billboard begging their ownership to lose as many games as possible just 2 years ago. Tanking is an act whereby a general manager of a sports team deliberately constructs a team to lose as many games as possible. The reasons are numerous. Nearly ever NBA superstar in history entered the draft at some point. The contracts are widely seen as the best bargains with the best retention options. The players can't choose where they want to go. They're forced to the teams that draft them to ensure that even lesser markers occasionally have some entertaining players. The draft is in many ways an initiation to the league itself.
So, in a zero sum game where there can only be one Champion why aren't there more teams trying to be bad? How many would be too many? And at what point would the league itself step in?
I honesty don't think you'll find a more interesting basketball debate topic overall than that. I could personally talk about it for days and am a big proponent for draft reform of some kind eventually. Not because of where tanking is but because of where I think it will go in the decades ahead.
Lukeem wrote:Treadmill_Team wrote:And there is no debate between MJ and Kobe. I could give you at least 5 players with a better case than Kobe.
Wilt has best case imo
Then
Lebron
Kareem
Russell
Not sure I’ve ever heard a great case for anyone else though. Those that push the Kobe argument are brutal from my experience
