2017 NBA Offseason

howard · Post by **howard** » Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:03 pm

Westbrook took 24 shots per game last season; PG-13 took 18, both career highs. Melo 17.8. I'll be surprised if Russ and Melo find a way to coexist offensively. Lotta talent, but they're gonna need more basketballs.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:20 pm

DSafetyGuy wrote:The first time I saw a tweet of the projected starting lineup, the instant thought I had was wondering if they'll ever sit Roberson so neither George or Anthony has to play the four, as they both whined about it previously in their careers.

With the shift to "positionless basketball", it would seem to be a non-question, but George was bitching about it two years ago. Melo did it five years ago, when the Knicks had their fluky 54-win season (and shot a ton of threes), then didn't want to return there, even though he is better suited to play there now.

Roberson could even play the 4 because he's so long, and is a worse perimeter player than George or Melo. If the stars buy in (especially on defense), they have the type of length and positional flexibility that is ideal for today's NBA.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:25 pm

howard wrote:Westbrook took 24 shots per game last season; PG-13 took 18, both career highs. Melo 17.8. I'll be surprised if Russ and Melo find a way to coexist offensively. Lotta talent, but they're gonna need more basketballs.

This could obviously be true, but I Iove OKC's off-season because they went from having absolutely no chance of winning a title to a team that could catch lightning in a bottle if things break right. For example, if Isaiah Thomas' hip is as bad as some fear, and one of the Warriors' stars gets hurt, the Thunder could have a very real shot at the 2018 title.

howard · Post by **howard** » Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:20 pm

You are right in your analysis, Joe. They drastically improved themselves, it might work. I don't think it will, but the chance of them winning a title went from near zero to significantly above zero.

Dubs are just an injury to Curry or Durant away from beatable by Houston, SA, or now OKC.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:21 pm

I'm not a basketball guy, but is there any evidence in his past at all that leads you to believe that Carmelo might buy in on defense?

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:19 pm

It's so strange to see the Knicks make a move whose negative effects (if any) will only be felt for a year, two years tops.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:44 pm

sancarlos wrote:I'm not a basketball guy, but is there any evidence in his past at all that leads you to believe that Carmelo might buy in on defense?

He's playing on a team that legitimately expects to be one of the league's best and will likely shoulder a smaller offensive load than he has in over a decade. Both those factors should increase his defensive efforts. IIRC, the one season he rated as a plus defender was the year the Nuggets made the Conference Finals, which may suggest that his effort correlates to his expectations that the team can contend.

HaulCitgo · Post by **HaulCitgo** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:43 am

He'll be more interested for a while on a winner. As long as he doesn't have to stay in front of anyone on the perimeter he could bang and rebound enough with bigs and get a hand up on stretch 4 types. Problem is on offense as he hasn't proven talented enough to win on his own and hasn't been willing enough to give up touches for team benefit. He's old now though and the easy road will be to float and take jumpers in transition, after double teams and off offensive rebounds. Feel like he knows he can't be the volume scorer anymore and the other guys won't let him so it will work.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:47 pm

OKC or Cleveland?

https://twitter.com/UPROXXSports/status ... 9612295173

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:55 pm

Woj is reporting that the Cavs, Spurs, Heat and possibly Thunder are in the mix for Wade. I think it'll come down to the Cavs and Thunder. The Cavs seem like the most logical fit as he could replace Shumpert in the backcourt rotation. But I also could easily see him going to the Thunder to team up with his buddy Melo.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:17 am

Me, to my actress wife - "I'm picking Oklahoma City"
My actress wife - "Like, the one in Oklahoma?"

govmentchedda · Post by **govmentchedda** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:29 am

Ryan wrote:Me, to my actress wife - "I'm picking Oklahoma City"
My actress wife - "Like, the one in Oklahoma!"

FIFY

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Tue Sep 26, 2017 5:57 pm

Cleveland it is...

https://www.instagram.com/p/BZhPrARgMxm/

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:15 am

With the addition of Wade, I think the Cavs have the 2010 NBA championship locked up.

duff · Post by **duff** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:51 am

They just need to sign Bosh and it is all theirs.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:24 am

I think Wade is washed up, but as long as he's taking minutes that would otherwise go to Shumpert or Rose -- and not JR or Crowder -- it's probably a decent move.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:41 am

Two of these guys are going to be counted on to hit threes and guard the Golden State Warriors in the NBA Finals, along with James, Crowder, and Tristan Thompson:

Jose Calderon, Kyle Korver, Kevin Love, Derrick Rose, JR Smith, Isaiah Thomas, Dwayne Wade.

And one of those guys will be guarding Klay Thompson.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:46 am

Oh, JR Smith is absolutely the key to this season for the Cavs. Which is terrifying.

wlu_lax6 · Post by **wlu_lax6** » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:46 pm

76ers in season form already
https://www.barstoolsports.com/philadel ... -they-take

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:58 pm

League approves lottery reform

Like, wouldn't giving the 4 teams with the best records that didn't make the playoffs the best lottery odds prevent tanking since it removes the incentive to get a benefit from losing?

Or am I crazy?

Post by **brian** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:02 pm

Johnnie wrote:League approves lottery reform

Like, wouldn't giving the 4 teams with the best records that didn't make the playoffs the best lottery odds prevent tanking since it removes the incentive to get a benefit from losing?

Or am I crazy?

That seems a little extreme. I'm fine with tweaking the odds a little to try and prevent tanking, but you can't actually literally punish teams for being bad.

ETA: Also in that scenario, it would arguably be even worse because you'd have teams intentionally tanking to NOT make the playoffs which looks even worse for the league. A 40-40 team with two games left literally bouncing the ball off their legs out of bounds to try and get the #1 pick and avoid the Golden State's of the world in the first round.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:56 pm

Maybe. But they had to get to 40 wins in the first place...which is the opposite of intentionally losing. Though I get what you're saying.

Otherwise, in my mind, all 14 teams missing out get even odds. It's tough to make teams do their best when there's incentive in losing.

HaulCitgo · Post by **HaulCitgo** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:11 pm

Seems like it used to be that way but then some teams including the Cs got #1 picks and they changed it.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:03 pm

Johnnie wrote:Otherwise, in my mind, all 14 teams missing out get even odds.

Right? If you introduce odds, people will play those odds.

Post by **brian** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:18 pm

I feel like this is a doctoral level math problem waiting to be solved. Equity of fairness for bad teams with true randomness.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:35 pm

Its not possible because all factors that determine badness are manipulable.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:40 am

The only idea I've ever read that approaches good is that thing where you start counting wins after you've been mathematically eliminated

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:12 am

I like the wheel.

Johnny Carwash · Post by **Johnny Carwash** » Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:14 am

An idea I've had is:
- Make the top three picks a complete free-for-all, with all 30 teams getting an even chance.
- Then from the fourth pick on, just go back to ascending order of regular-season record for the remaining 27 teams.

This puts a modest limit on what a team can guarantee itself by tanking, and makes the draft an even bigger event, with fans of every team excited at the chance of getting a top pick. Fans of the reigning champion, or a middle-of-the-pack team, get to anticipate the lottery just as much as the worst teams.

Of course it would never happen because owners want a safety net for sucking, but it's fun to think about.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:18 am

Giving good teams the best draft picks would be a way bigger problem than tanking for me.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:13 am

Even lottery odds and then the 2nd round in order of record? That's not enough incentive to lose, is it?

L-Jam3 · Post by **L-Jam3** » Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:53 am

I remember kicking an idea around over the summer. I don't think it was here, so I'll shoot it out for you.

We have two competing problems:
1. Because of the sport of basketball has so few players, getting the best ones are paramount, and the quickest way to turn a bad team into a good one.
2. A system that rewards bad play is worrisome; when it encourages out-and-out tanking, it's problematic.

So here's a few ideas:

1. First, open the lottery up to the 14 teams that miss the playoffs, AND the 2 8th place conference teams on a limited basis.
2. Change the number of balls in the hopper by this method. Look at the 14 teams that miss the playoffs. Find the median total of wins (not the mean) and round that number up. That becomes "The Cut-Line". All teams that end their season with MORE wins than The Cut-Line get that many balls in the hopper equal to The Cut-Line number, INCLUDING the two 8 place conference teams.
3. All teams below The Cut-Line get as many balls in the hopper for as many wins as they had.
4. Only the first draw for the Number 1 overall is based on these balls in the hopper. So in effect, the 8th Place teams (i.e. the last IN the playoffs) would have as good odds for the Number 1 overall as the 8th through 14th teams.
5. After the Number 1 overall is picked, this time the lottery is re-allocated so the worst team has the best chance, the 2nd worst has the 2nd best, and so on. For this and the subsequent, the 8th Place Playoff qualifiers are not in this one.
6. The picks for the 2nd and 3rd occur, again with the worst teams getting the best chances.
7. Picks 4 through 14, like today, go in reverse order of records of teams that miss the lottery for the top 3.

So in effect it would do this:
1. It would force teams to at least try to get marginally better, since it would make teams at least try to get to the playoffs, or failing that, become less terrible.
2. Once it is apparent that a team isn't good enough for the playoffs, there is still an incentive to try as win as much as possible, especially since the #1 pick is tied to your total wins.
3. Bubble playoff teams who might tank to miss the playoffs to get into the lottery is now not there. There is every reason to fight for the 8th slot, especially since a chance would exist that they could make the playoffs, even if they get swept out, and hit the lottery for the Number 1 overall.
4. If a team is truly terrible, and lose games legitimately because of lacking talent/coaching as opposed to tanking, then the #2 or 3 pick is in play.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:06 am

Ryan wrote:The only idea I've ever read that approaches good is that thing where you start counting wins after you've been mathematically eliminated

I also liked this one (a lottery ball for every win after they are eliminated, right?).

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:08 am

DSafetyGuy wrote:
Ryan wrote:The only idea I've ever read that approaches good is that thing where you start counting wins after you've been mathematically eliminated

I also liked this one (a lottery ball for every win after they are eliminated, right?).

What happens when you get eliminated on last day and get no balls?

Post by **brian** » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:09 am

A_B wrote:
DSafetyGuy wrote:
Ryan wrote:The only idea I've ever read that approaches good is that thing where you start counting wins after you've been mathematically eliminated

I also liked this one (a lottery ball for every win after they are eliminated, right?).

What happens when you get eliminated on last day and get no balls?

Then you are ball-less. They have no balls, Cotton.

Ryan · Post by **Ryan** » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:16 am

A_B wrote:
DSafetyGuy wrote:
Ryan wrote:The only idea I've ever read that approaches good is that thing where you start counting wins after you've been mathematically eliminated

I also liked this one (a lottery ball for every win after they are eliminated, right?).

What happens when you get eliminated on last day and get no balls?

Ballless in Secaucus

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:17 am

Ryan wrote:
A_B wrote:
DSafetyGuy wrote:
Ryan wrote:Ballless in Secaucus

I can't believe the sequel to Sleepless in Seattle flopped so bad.

Post by **Shirley** » Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:37 am

Maybe the NBA doesn't need a draft at all anymore. There's already a salary cap that limits how much each team can spend. Generally, the best players make the most money, so the best teams have the least room in the cap.

So, make it an auction. In negative order of finish, teams nominate a player to auction. If you nominate, you have to give an opening bid. Since these are rookies, you'd be bidding on their 2- or 3-year salary. That way, the teams that have the most cap space and WANT to spend money to win will have the opportunity to do so. Go through two rounds of this, just like in the current draft and limit teams to two signees each (or maybe three, to keep most teams involved until the end).

Post by **brian** » Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:39 am

As much fun as that might be to watch, the players union would NEVER go for it. Would drive pretty much all mid-priced veterans out of the league since teams would be cutting payroll wherever possible to be able to bid on the best "draftees".

(Also, as we recently learned white owners bidding on mostly black players..even if they're getting the money from the auction...no bueno.)

duff · Post by **duff** » Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:43 am

And do you think all those snowflakes out there would be for auctioning off young black men for 3-4 years of services to the rich white owners.