Tank Watch

wichmae · Post #1 » by **wichmae** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:35 am

IM going to bookmark this thread and try to update it every day or other day.

Whatever I can get around to doing...

Atlanta 31 - 40 (Currently hold 8 seed in playoffs by .5)

Denver 43 - 28(Currently #14 spot .5 games out of 8 seed)
Portland 38 - 34 (Currently #13 spot)
Sacramento 31 - 39 (Currently #12 spot)
New Jersey 31 - 41 (Currently #11 spot)
Indiana 29 - 43 (Currently #10 spot)
Chicago 28 - 43 (Currently #9 spot)
Charlotte 25 - 45 (Currently #8 spot)
Milwaukee 24 - 46 (Currently #7 spot)
LA Clippers 21 - 50 (Currently #6 spot)
New York 20 - 51(Currently #5 spot)
Minnesota 18 - 52 (Currently #4 spot)
Memphis 18 - 52 (Currently #3 spot)
Seattle 17 - 54 (Currently #2 spot)
Miami 13 - 58(Currently #1 spot)

IrishRainbow · Post #2 » by **IrishRainbow** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:00 pm

It's gonna take the like of Boykins, Day, Ham, Gatling Gun, and at center The Stud Danny Schayes to make up the ground for that 5 spot... OH, wait, actually, we might have a shot.

IrishRainbow · Post #3 » by **IrishRainbow** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:06 pm

Now that I look at it closer, should #4 and #5 be switcharooed? Or is there something I'm missing?, which is entirely possible.

Dags · Post #4 » by **Dags** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:33 pm

Yup, there are a couple of mistakes. Bucks and Clippers should be switched, as should NY and Minnesota.

Looks like the 5-8 spots could go to anyone.

EastSideBucksFan · Post #5 » by **EastSideBucksFan** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:03 pm

We were projected with the #6 pick when we won the lottery

We were projected #3 last year when we dropped to #6 last year

Really it can go either way

I don't think we have to try to lose games, we lose them at a pretty good clip when we are trying to win.

Bucks_Revenge · Post #6 » by **Bucks_Revenge** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:10 pm

haven't we learn from last season that tanking doesn't help anything....are guys just blind or something jeesh...

fam3381 · Post #7 » by **fam3381** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:34 pm

Dags wrote:Yup, there are a couple of mistakes. Bucks and Clippers should be switched, as should NY and Minnesota.

Yep. The lottery rankings are based purely on record, so at this stage with teams having played differing numbers of games, winning% (or losing% if that's how you want to look at it) is the relevant stat to look at it.

By that number we're 7th, two games "back" of the Clips.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/standings ... asontype=2

Post #8 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:49 pm

Bucks_Revenge wrote:haven't we learn from last season that tanking doesn't help anything....are guys just blind or something jeesh...

Explain.

InsideOut · Post #9 » by **InsideOut** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:59 pm

Bucks_Revenge wrote:haven't we learn from last season that tanking doesn't help anything....are guys just blind or something jeesh...

Teams like Cleveland and the Spurs have been set for decades due to tanking and multiple teams keep tanking year after year, yet according to you they're all blind. Tanking got Boston the 5th pick which they turned into Allen which got them KG. I guess tanking not working for us for one season trumps all that.

Bucks_Revenge · Post #10 » by **Bucks_Revenge** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:06 pm

InsideOut wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Teams like Cleveland and the Spurs have been set for decades due to tanking and multiple teams keep tanking year after year, yet according to you they're all blind. Tanking got Boston the 5th pick which they turned into Allen which got them KG. I guess tanking not working for us for one season trumps all that.

you do realize it was the Celtics who tanked the year the spurs got Duncan the lottery is based on luck there is no guaranteed that we get a top pick...you people are like children when it comes to tanking.

DrugBust wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Explain.

Memphis had the worse recod last year the celtics had the 2nd we had the 3rd and those 3 made up the 4th, 5th, and 6th picks in last years draft..

in 2005 the year the Bucks got the #1 pick they had the 6th worse record in the NBA Atalanta and Jazz made up the rest of the top 3 picks...ATL had the worse record and they got the 2nd pick, the Jazz had the 3rd worse record and the hornets that year had the worse record in the NBA and they got the 4th pick but turned out great for them because they got the best player in that draft and a MVP candidate.

I do not know what else is there to explain..the worse record does not guaranteed you the #1 pick...we tanked last year and what did that bring us the #6 pick and in 2005 we did not tank but still had a bad season and we got the #1 pick...the lottery is something you cannot control if you are in the top 6 in worse records you have a shot though.

Post #11 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:24 pm

I'd rather have Conley than Yi. I'd rather have Horford than Conley. I'd rather have Durant than Horford...

It's not like if you miss out on the #1 pick all is lost. The higher the pick you have the better you may be off in the future. A higher pick gives you a greater shot at landing a potential All-Star.

So even if we don't even up with that #1 or #2 pick, we could still find ourselves in better shape next year by shutting it down than we would if we end up in the late lotto.

Post #12 » by **paulpressey25** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:28 pm

You can argue that tanking hasn't helped us in 2005 and 2007 but as DB said, I'd rather have Yi right now than Corey Brewer.

In regards to 2005, I think the value of tanking is and will be extremely important here since the 19-year old age rule went in.

In 2005 the tanking was less important since high schoolers like Bynum and Monta Ellis could float all around the first round. But if a guy like Bynum was 18 today, he'd have to play a year in the NCAA's and would prove out as a top three pick.

Post #13 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:41 pm

paulpressey25 wrote:You can argue that tanking hasn't helped us in 2005 and 2007 but as DB said, I'd rather have Yi right now than Corey Brewer.

In regards to 2005, I think the value of tanking is and will be extremely important here since the 19-year old age rule went in.

In 2005 the tanking was less important since high schoolers like Bynum and Monta Ellis could float all around the first round. But if a guy like Bynum was 18 today, he'd have to play a year in the NCAA's and would prove out as a top three pick.

That's a real great point and one I hadn't really thought of. If Kobe Bryant goes to Duke and dominates for a season does he fall to the back of the lotto? Does Rashard Lewis fall to the end of round one?

LUKE23 · Post #14 » by **LUKE23** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:43 pm

DrugBust wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

That's a real great point and one I hadn't really thought of. If Kobe Bryant goes to Duke and dominates for a season does he fall to the back of the lotto? Does Rashard Lewis fall to the end of round one?

No and no, because both blow up their first year of college.

HSers, unless they are freak of nature athletic specimens like LeBron and Dwight, rarely go #1 without college just because it's so hard to judge level of competition.

InsideOut · Post #15 » by **InsideOut** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:49 pm

DrugBust wrote:I'd rather have Conley than Yi. I'd rather have Horford than Conley. I'd rather have Durant than Horford...

It's not like if you miss out on the #1 pick all is lost. The higher the pick you have the better you may be off in the future. A higher pick gives you a greater shot at landing a potential All-Star.

So even if we don't even up with that #1 or #2 pick, we could still find ourselves in better shape next year by shutting it down than we would if we end up in the late lotto.

I can't understand why people don't understand this fact. It's not about getting the first pick or you fail. It's about having your worse case scenario being the 4th pick instead of the 6th, 8th or 10th pick. Also, history shows the more losses you have the higher ON AVERAGE you'll pick. History also shows ON AVERAGE the best players were taken with high picks. I know I'd rather have history and the law of average working for me than against me. But I understand not everyone is good at math or statistics.

Ironic how the the person doing the name calling by saying we're blind and acting like children is the same person accusing people of acting like children.

Bucks_Revenge · Post #16 » by **Bucks_Revenge** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:01 pm

InsideOut wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I can't understand why people don't understand this fact. It's not about getting the first pick or you fail. It's about having your worse case scenario being the 4th pick instead of the 6th, 8th or 10th pick. Also, history shows the more losses you have the higher ON AVERAGE you'll pick. History also shows ON AVERAGE the best players were taken with high picks. I know I'd rather have history and the law of average working for me than against me. But I understand not everyone is good at math or statistics.

Ironic how the the person doing the name calling by saying we're blind and acting like children is the same person accusing people of acting like children.

history also shows us if you have a top 6 worse record and a meddling owner chances are that your team is going to be crappy for another decade.

InsideOut · Post #17 » by **InsideOut** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:39 pm

Bucks_Revenge wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

history also shows us if you have a top 6 worse record and a meddling owner chances are that your team is going to be crappy for another decade.

Of this fact I have no doubt. We've mostly sucked for 20 years. As long as Kohl owns the team I see no reason to think anything will change.

Post #18 » by **paulpressey25** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:00 pm

As we've talked about on here, the NBA draft was not a crapshoot before 1995. It was actually a pretty orderly process and you chances of getting a great player were bleak if you were picking lower than 5.

And your chances of at least getting an impact starter were bleak below pick 10-12.

Sure, you could still pick a bust in the top ten as there were some there.....but you never ever had players like Kobe, Bynum, T-Mac, etc being available where they were. Or even second tier top players like Ellis, Rashard Lewis, Al Harrington, etc being available in the late first/early second.

Tanking now makes a ton of sense.

wichmae · Post #19 » by **wichmae** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:34 pm

order fixed...

wichmae · Post #20 » by **wichmae** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:11 am

updated in the first post.