Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

  1. #1
    Headband and Rec Specs rexnom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    8,751

    Default It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    I'm becoming increasingly puzzled with our outrage over Obie's decision-making and not playing certain young guys.

    Here's the logic as I see it:

    Obie-->Losing-->Good draft pick

    Firing Obie/Playing young guys-->Winning-->Bad draft pick

    You have to make a choice. You can't both hate Obie and want a high draft pick. Obie is the key to a high draft pick.

    As a Pacer fan, I think you can take one of two positions:

    1.) You support Obie's decisions because you think it guarantees the Pacers a higher pick. I don't think he's a terrible coach (I thought he did a great job with what he had last year, for instance). However, it's clear that he's reached the end of his effectiveness here. You may disagree. However, I think it's become fairly obvious that his coaching is leading to losing.

    2.) If we fire Obie or Bird forces him to play the young guys more, I think you'll see the overall energy of the team pick up, which will lead to more wins.

    As of right now, we are 1 off in the win column from the 9th pick. That's how precarious our drafting position is. Would you really want sit through this year and not get a top 5 pick? What's the point? To develop Josh McRoberts? To see Lester Connor for two months?

    Now, you could argue that this could have long-term poor effects on our players. I don't think so. If they're mentally strong enough, which I would hope, a new coach and more talent will reinvigorate them.

    Personally, I think that Bird-Morway is making a conscious decision to tank away this year. They didn't enter the season with this mindset but I think that it became clear that it was a lost year when Danny went down for an extended period of time. Giving Foster time to recover is evidence of this. Tyler's not playing again this year either, which shows me that they're not interested in winning at all. In other words, they're not going to push it with semi-injured players. I'll be shocked if Danny is still playing in April.

    Ultimately, this is an optimistic post. I want to encourage everyone to calm down. It really will not matter in 2011-2012 what happened in these months of 2010, even if we don't get Wall or Turner. The most important year since 04-05 is coming up next year. Focus on that. That's when we'll finally reap the benefits of all of our patience. Or not. In any case, this year only matters in so far as it doesn't interrupt our future plans. It hasn't so far.

    Start worrying if our pick in June busts and we get nothing from our expirings/cap space. But, for the love of god, don't worry about Jim O'Brien or this season. He's a throwaway coach and this is a throwaway season. This team is about something much bigger than either of those things: the future.

  2. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to rexnom For This Useful Post:

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked


  3. #2

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Well here's the thing.

    I think if you play the younger guys, it will be more enjoyable. They will play more as a team, show effort and intensity.

    But here's the bottom line. They are young, there isn't a superstar there, and they are playing a really tough schedule. They'll lose anyway.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Sookie For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,441

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by rexnom View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But, for the love of god, don't worry about Jim O'Brien or this season. He's a throwaway coach and this is a throwaway season. This team is about something much bigger than either of those things: the future.
    I'm glad someone here finally came out and said it.

    Worry about the bigger things. It's doubtful JOB was hired to be some long term guy. Most likely he was just brought in to be a filler for the "irrelevant" period anyways. I wouldn't worry too much about who the coach is during that period of time. It's the designated throwaway period.

    In a couple of years, you won't recognize this roster and someone else will be coaching it. Chances are, it's going to be a lot more talented team.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to d_c For This Useful Post:


  7. #4
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by rexnom View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You have to make a choice. You can't both hate Obie and want a high draft pick.
    Oh, I certainly can do both. I want O'Brien fired................. immediately after the regular season ends.

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  9. #5
    Denim Chicken duke dynamite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Bloomington
    Posts
    13,373
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Oh, I certainly can do both. I want O'Brien fired................. immediately after the regular season ends.
    This is more like an irregular season.

  10. #6
    White and Nerdy Anthem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,741

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Oh, I certainly can do both. I want O'Brien fired................. immediately after the regular season ends.
    Agreed. As long as Bird fires him, I won't care that he was so hands-off this season.

    But the dude had better be fired.
    Welcome to Pacers Digest! New around here? Here are three tips for making the forum a great place to talk about Pacers basketball.

    • Log in. Even if you want to read instead of post, it's helpful because it lets you:
    • Change your signature options. You can hide all signatures by choosing "Settings" (top right) then "General Settings" (middle left) and unchecking the box "Show Signatures" (in the "Thread Display Options" area).
    • Create an ignore list. I know it may seem unneighborly. But you're here to talk about the Pacers, not argue with someone who's just looking for an argument. Most of the regular users on here make use (at least occasionally) of the "Ignore" feature. Just go to "Settings" -> "Edit Ignore List" and add the names.

    Enjoy your time at PD!

  11. #7
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,285

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    You can always fire him and insert a puppet interim coach with explicit instructions to divide the minutes differently and get younger players minutes in a consistent rotation... and let him know winning games is not the chief goal now.

    But at this point... we had nearly a whole season where we could've been pointing players toward development... but now... the lost season is almost history.
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Bball For This Useful Post:


  13. #8
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,285

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthem View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Agreed. As long as Bird fires him, I won't care that he was so hands-off this season.

    But the dude had better be fired.
    If you're negotiating with the city and talking about losing money, can you justify paying two coaches (firing O'Brien with a yr left)? Can you justify NOT firing O'Brien (because with him on the bench next season the product is guaranteed to be about as popular as a log in the punchbowl)?

    Which way makes your negotiating position stronger?
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  14. #9

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by rexnom View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    As of right now, we are 1 off in the win column from the 9th pick. That's how precarious our drafting position is. Would you really want sit through this year and not get a top 5 pick? What's the point? To develop Josh McRoberts? To see Lester Connor for two months?
    Is it really that close? I had no idea. That is scary indeed. We need more Murph.

  15. #10

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you're negotiating with the city and talking about losing money, can you justify paying two coaches (firing O'Brien with a yr left)? Can you justify NOT firing O'Brien (because with him on the bench next season the product is guaranteed to be about as popular as a log in the punchbowl)?

    Which way makes your negotiating position stronger?
    We need to get a money pool going and send a letter of intent to TPTB and tell them we will pay them to have... whomever we vote for on here... to be the next Pacers coach. That way they will actually make a profit firing JOB..

    good idea right!?

    I would pay them $1,000.00 if they let me coach the team and travel on the plane

    I'd earn enough to retire off the poker games on the plane... Those rich guys have no idea about the super system
    Last edited by PaceBalls; 03-04-2010 at 11:47 PM.

  16. #11
    Gotta Play Big BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,476

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    I will admit that having JOb helps you in June. The problem is swallowing the whole package for such a long time. Actually, the next time I watch the Pacers will probably be the draft.

  17. #12
    Headband and Rec Specs rexnom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    8,751

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Any coaching change will fire up the team too much. They'll rally for a couple of wins that they otherwise would not have. The correct call is to stick with O'Brien. For now.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to rexnom For This Useful Post:


  19. #13
    Member Trophy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    8,556

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    There's always next season...

    ...And 2 seasons from now.

  20. #14

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by rexnom View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Any coaching change will fire up the team too much. They'll rally for a couple of wins that they otherwise would not have. The correct call is to stick with O'Brien. For now.
    It's okay to keep him, Larry just needs to force him to play the players he should be playing.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Sookie For This Useful Post:


  22. #15
    Pacer Pride, Colts Strong Kid Minneapolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    4,693

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    To the OP: That's just it, we're not tanking for the future. We're tanking incorrectly. The young guys are the future, and they aren't getting enough play. I think that's why everyone is freakin' out. Not only are they not seeing enough court, but Obie is actually ridiculing them when he can, especially Rush and McBob. That's not good mojo.

    Moving up 3 spots on the board (maybe) isn't worth sacrificing experience for those young guys that we have.

    He can tank this season, and still play the young'ns. It gets them experience, gives the fans something to do and get excited about. It's a lot easier to swallow a buncha losses if you feel like there's progress being made to improving our investment in the future (the youngsters).

    If yer losing, and playing mostly the veterans who are having no success, you're losing in multiple ways... in the win-loss column... with the fans... and with the young guys who need the experience.

    There's no reason to tank without giving the young guys a good hard look, and those young guys will at least come out and act like they give a *****.
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 03-05-2010 at 12:02 AM.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to Kid Minneapolis For This Useful Post:


  24. #16
    Administrator Peck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,712

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    I hate when people call him a short term coach or a throw away coach.

    He has already been here 3 years, longer than anyone not named Slick, Rick or Brown. If he comes back next season and is here for his fourth season he will only be behind Slick and tied with Rick.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to Peck For This Useful Post:


  26. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,441

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I hate when people call him a short term coach or a throw away coach.

    He has already been here 3 years, longer than anyone not named Slick, Rick or Brown. If he comes back next season and is here for his fourth season he will only be behind Slick and tied with Rick.
    This whole period of the Ford/Tinsley/Murphleavy contracts basically ensured it would be a throwaway period, no matter who was gonna be here. Thus Bird's constant trumpeting of the 3 year/2011 plan.

    Bird evidently thought well enough of the job JOB did his first two years to ensure he'd get paid a 4th year, so that was his assessment. I personally wouldn't have given it to him.

  27. #18
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,113

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by d_c View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This whole period of the Ford/Tinsley/Murphleavy contracts basically ensured it would be a throwaway period, no matter who was gonna be here.
    I tried to go into the archives and see who protested the loudest the day we traded for Murphleavy. Seth, I'm pretty sure. Maybe Jay. Arbry, but more pro Jax than anti Murphleavy.

    But I couldn't find the threads. Missing those dates, I think.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  28. #19
    Member Noodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    888

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    I still believe it's wise to keep O'brien at least until the end of next year, but what do I know.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to Noodle For This Useful Post:


  30. #20
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,051

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sookie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well here's the thing.

    I think if you play the younger guys, it will be more enjoyable. They will play more as a team, show effort and intensity.

    But here's the bottom line. They are young, there isn't a superstar there, and they are playing a really tough schedule. They'll lose anyway.
    Here's the fly in your ointment. You don't know they will lose anyway. Right now we have a team that knows it isn't going anywhere and is playing accordingly. When you change things around per your own words they will play more as a team, show effort and intensity. We don't want the players fired up. Fired up teams win more than their share simply on enthusiasm and energy.

    Right now we seem to be accomplishing our goal of getting a high draft pick, so it's better to let things be.

    As for the schedule, it's tough for the next 7 games, but 10 of the last 14 are at home. In the last 14 games we play Detroit twice, Washington twice, Sacramento, New Jersey, and New York, all very winnable games against teams we are competing with for a top draft pick. We could easily play over .500 over that span if we get on a roll.

    As is, I'm afraid we will play ourselves out of a top draft pick over the last 14 games.

    Myself I would rather finish 4th and be guaranteed a top seven pick, rather than actually finish seventh and only be guaranteed a top ten pick.
    Last edited by Will Galen; 03-05-2010 at 03:42 AM.

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to Will Galen For This Useful Post:


  32. #21

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Consider the following scenarios at the league's current standing:


    1. Finishing 3-18 will get the Pacers at a lower percentage than GS currently has (3rd worst record). 15.6% chance @ #1 pick

    2. Finishing 7-14 will keep the Pacers in their current spot (4th worst record). 11.9% chance @ #1 pick

    3. Finishing 9-12 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the 76ers (7th worst record). 4.3% chance @ #1 pick

    4. Finishing 11-10 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the LA Clippers (9th worst record). 1.7% chance @ #1 pick

    5. Finishing 21-0 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the Chicago Bulls (11th worst record). 0.8% chance @ #1 pick.


    Are we really tanking?

    For a 3.7% better chance at the #1 pick than we currently have?

    The addition or subtraction of any coaches is not going to get us at 9-12. That's a 7.6% lower chance of getting the #1 pick and 3 spots lower in the draft.

    This is a draft where picks 1 and 2 are a certainty, then the difference between #3 and #12 is arguable. Larry Bird himself called this one of the best drafts in years.

    Why are we discussing tanking with such marginal results, and what difference (in finishing position) does it make whether or not O'Brien is here?

    Let's salvage what we can out of this train wreck of a season AND get what we're on line to get anyway.
    Last edited by imawhat; 03-05-2010 at 04:13 AM.

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to imawhat For This Useful Post:


  34. #22
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,051

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by imawhat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Let's look at this realistically. Consider the following scenarios at the league's current standing:


    1. Finishing 3-18 will get the Pacers at a lower percentage than GS currently has (3rd worst record). 15.6% chance @ #1 pick

    2. Finishing 7-14 will keep the Pacers in their current spot (4th worst record). 11.9% chance @ #1 pick

    3. Finishing 9-12 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the 76ers (7th worst record). 4.3% chance @ #1 pick

    4. Finishing 11-10 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the LA Clippers (9th worst record). 1.7% chance @ #1 pick

    5. Finishing 21-0 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the Chicago Bulls (11th worst record). 0.8% chance @ #1 pick.


    Are we really tanking?

    For a 3.7% better chance at the #1 pick than we currently have?

    The addition or subtraction of any coaches is not going to get us at 9-12. That's a 7.6% lower chance of getting the #1 pick and 3 spots lower in the draft.

    This is a draft where picks 1 and 2 are a certainty, then the difference between #3 and #12 is arguable. Larry Bird himself called this one of the best drafts in years.

    Why are we discussing tanking with such marginal results, and what difference (in finishing position) does it make whether or not O'Brien is here?

    Let's salvage what we can out of this train wreck of a season AND get what we're on line to get anyway.
    What difference does it make? Historically it makes a ton of difference. Read this article from last year!

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...ory?id=4227787

    D.R.A.F.T. Initiative: Top-heavy

    The difference between the top five picks and the next five is staggering

    By Elena Bergeron
    ESPN The Magazine

    Call them the combine all-stars. Or better yet, the All-World amateurs. In the past 20 years, the top five picks have so far outperformed the rest of the draft over their careers that the first handful of names should get used to rolling as an elite team. Even compared to the rest of the lottery, the top five picks make the draft as top-heavy as an OC Housewife.

    Of course, it sounds like a "duh" moment to say that the talent snatched up first is likely to outperform the rest of the field. That's been true since we first divvyed teams in third-grade P.E. The shock comes from how much better those first five picks perform than players chosen just two minutes later. The divide is as sharp as the chasm between Vince Carter's career (fifth pick in 1998) and Tractor Traylor's (that year's No. 6).

    That's because by the sixth pick, the can't-miss freshman, the Final Four MOP and most scouted Euroleague phenom are all off the board. The top five picks represent what GMs have identified as the best of each NBA archetype (super-athletic wing, dominant big man, savvy point guard). With the true game-changers gone, what's left is a sturdy crop of contributors whom teams target to fill a roster void -- a shooter, a shot-blocker, a solid post presence, etc.

    In recent debates about No. 1 picks -- Greg Oden versus Kevin Durant, Michael Beasley versus Derrick Rose -- the hubbub rarely centered on what their prospective employers needed; everyone needs a player who can single-handedly net more wins. But with the sixth through 10th picks, personnel needs come into play. In other words, the first five picks fill arenas; the next five fill rotations.

    No-brainer picks at the top of the pile typically account for an estimated wins average somewhere between 7.5 and 4.5 every year. Between picks 6 and 10, the difference in how a potential draftee will sway a team's fortune barely varies more than a single game. So, even if your team has a lottery pick, the talent available once the first five are off the table isn't comparable. These options aren't infallible, of course. (Will that No. 1 overall pick be Shaquille O'Neal or Michael Olowokandi?) It's just that, if there is a true game-changer in a prospective draft class, he rarely slips further than fifth.

    There've only been 28 superstar players (players with an EWA greater than 10 -- think Kevin Garnett or Jason Kidd) in the past 20 drafts -- one or two per year. In 1996, the Halley's Comet of draft classes, there were four: Allen Iverson, Ray Allen, Kobe Bryant and Steve Nash. There have been many more (110) star-caliber players (EWA greater than 5) during those 20 years.

    That number means there are maybe five Rasheed Wallaces in any draft class. That's it. And they're usually pretty easy to spot. "I had one exec who'd just follow the biggest crowd at pre-draft camp," says a Western Conference scout. "He didn't need to know anything else about the guy he ended up drafting with the second pick."

    But the top five picks look even better considering the stark dropoff with the sixth pick. Of the past 20 players selected in the six-hole, only eight were better than one-win guys. The best of those, Portland's Brandon Roy, is twice as valuable to a team than his nearest competition at that pick (Antoine Walker's EWA is 6.0 compared to Roy's 12.5), but is only three years into his career and without years in decline factored in.

    In fact, the research shows that the expected career for a sixth pick is similar to that of former Bullets' draftee Tom Gugliotta (3.9 EWA) -- who put up 20-plus ppg for two seasons before knee injuries and a near-death seizure hampered his career. Gugliotta is the face of the sixth pick both statistically and anecdotally. The spot has been plagued with eventually immobile bigs (Felton Spencer, Stacey King), misfortune (DerMarr Johnson and Sharone Wright's car crashes; Dajuan Wagner's chronic colitis), as well as talented overeaters (Traylor, Walker, Bryant Reeves). Chad Ford's projected sixth pick, DeMar Derozan, is accepting rabbits' feet care of the Timberwolves organization.

    In the rare instance a bona fide star slips out of the top five, recent drafts hint that said player will fall no further than the ninth pick, where a good GM can marvel at his colleagues' stupidity. At the ninth spot, the average EWA is 3.3 per year, except in three notable cases where some other team flubbed a top-five pick. Like in 2002, when Amare Stoudamire watched Jay Williams (No. 2) and Nikoloz Tskitishvili (No. 5) clear the board before him.

    So if playground rules apply, Blake Griffin will be a no-brainer for the Clippers. As for the rest of the teams drafting after the Wizards at No. 5? Have fun picking from the booger-eaters.

    Elena Bergeron is a staff writer for ESPN The Magazine.
    Last edited by Will Galen; 03-05-2010 at 03:45 AM.

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to Will Galen For This Useful Post:


  36. #23

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Galen View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What difference does it make? Read this article from last year!
    I agree with the article. What I'm saying is that you have Dwayne Wade and Brandon Roy with picks #1 and #2, then #3 pick will land you Dennis Scott while #12 will land you Nick Anderson.

    Maybe some of the bigger draft experts can add, but I think there's a significant dropoff in talent after the #2 pick. I see no real sleepers in this year's draft due to the glaring weakness in the rest of the available players.

    The good news though is that you could get a decent impact player at #16. The bad news is that you'll get that player at #3, when in '03 you're looking at Carmelo Anthony. Maybe I'm off.


    In any scenario, the main point is that you don't lose much in the draft by finishing the season at 15-6. But you can gain a lot if you happen to develop your younger players and that scenario unfolds. At the least, your younger players are more ready to play next season. Or maybe you do it to raise the value of your younger players that aren't well known to the rest of the league. Maybe AJ Price finishes the year with 16 pt/8ast and you can trade him (and the #6 pick) for a very good player. Or maybe you realize that several of your players have an amazing on-court chemistry and it helps you figure out your needs going forward. Or maybe you do all of that, finish 7-14, and wind up exactly where'd you be anyways.

    None of this will happen under O'Brien because none of our young guys have mastered any phase of the game. Neither "a phase" nor "the phase".
    Last edited by imawhat; 03-05-2010 at 04:07 AM.

  37. #24
    Headband and Rec Specs rexnom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    8,751

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by imawhat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Consider the following scenarios at the league's current standing:


    1. Finishing 3-18 will get the Pacers at a lower percentage than GS currently has (3rd worst record). 15.6% chance @ #1 pick

    2. Finishing 7-14 will keep the Pacers in their current spot (4th worst record). 11.9% chance @ #1 pick

    3. Finishing 9-12 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the 76ers (7th worst record). 4.3% chance @ #1 pick

    4. Finishing 11-10 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the LA Clippers (9th worst record). 1.7% chance @ #1 pick

    5. Finishing 21-0 will give the Pacers a lower percentage than the Chicago Bulls (11th worst record). 0.8% chance @ #1 pick.


    Are we really tanking?

    For a 3.7% better chance at the #1 pick than we currently have?
    I think you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not about the difference between that 15.6% chance and 11.9%. It's between the difference between 15.6% and a 1.7% chance.

    Furthermore, your analysis ignores our cumulative chance at either Wall or Turner. For example, with the 3rd worst record, we'd have about a 30% chance at either. That's not great but it's better than the around 4% chance we'd have at either with the 9th worst record. So, would we tank for a 3.7% difference? Probably not. But would we tank for a 26% difference? Yes, definitely.

    Lastly, I don't know how you're calculating this but the difference between the 4th worst record (us) and the 9th worst record (Philly) is only 2 wins (wins are what matter when looking at tanking standings). We are not nearly as far away from the 9th worst record as you make us out to be.
    Last edited by rexnom; 03-05-2010 at 08:25 AM.

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to rexnom For This Useful Post:


  39. #25

    Default Re: It's ok. We're tanking. For the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by EmCeE View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I still believe it's wise to keep O'brien at least until the end of next year, but what do I know.

    I have never advocated Jimmy to be fired, and with 21 games left I see no reason to do it. The season is gone so why change? Let JOS continue his path of destruction for a chance at the best pick position possible. Take advantage of the lemons and make lemonaide out of it for the future. It's all about the future now, not winning at this point. Let the winning happen next year when it could be meaningful.

Similar Threads

  1. Could someone with ESPN insider post this article
    By dannygranger in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-03-2010, 09:36 AM
  2. Coach O'Brien, the team's future, his future...
    By kellogg in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-24-2009, 04:32 PM
  3. Pacers' Bird unsure of his future
    By indyblue47 in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 03-19-2008, 11:48 AM
  4. Secure the Future or Salvage the Present
    By Major Cold in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-06-2008, 05:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •