• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Let it all out. The Cavaliers Rant Thread

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Derek said:
Why the confusion?

Bickerstaff and the players are trying to win games.

Do you think coaches or players get rewarded for tanking? Coaches get fired and players get replaced.

Contrary to popular opinion, Kevin Love probably doesn't want to be thought of as a washed-up bum. Okoro is trying to hold his spot, so he doesn't get replaced by an incoming lotto pick. Sexton just wants to prove everybody wrong always. Bickerstaff wants to keep his job!

That's not to mention the numerous players on our roster that might be out of the league for good if they don't show something on this team.
Click to expand...

I just can't subscribe to a theory where players or coaches are "saving" their jobs in a 21-48 season, when there are 3 games left.

No sane organization is making determinations on players and coaches, based on a sample size of 3 games.
 
I'mWithDan said:
I just can't subscribe to a theory where players or coaches are "saving" their jobs in a 21-48 season, when there are 3 games left.

No sane organization is making determinations on players and coaches, based on a sample size of 3 games.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anybody said that’s what was happening
 
buzzdog said:
Microscopic changes in the draft odds really don't mean shit. The balls drop where they drop.
Click to expand...
Going from a 66% chance of a Top 5 pick to a 36% chance is not microscopic.

That is a demonstrably substantial shift in chances.

We should play poker sometime.

But... the Cavs had tiny odds in 2016, an 8.9% at the first pick in 2011, even smaller odds in 2013 and 2014, so if it is their destiny...
 
Sebastian said:
Going from a 66% chance of a Top 5 pick to a 36% chance is not microscopic.

That is a demonstrably substantial shift in chances.

We should play poker sometime.

But... the Cavs had tiny odds in 2016, an 8.9% at the first pick in 2011, even smaller odds in 2013 and 2014, so if it is their destiny...
Click to expand...
What slot would they have had to have been in to have that 66% odds of picking no later than 5?

Just wondering if that’s based on 21 wins but not accounting for the 3 way tiebreaker drawing that could have still knocked us down to 4th or 5th slot. If we had ended up in the 5th slot after the tiebreakers, would it still have been 66% odds of picking five or better?
 
MirORich said:
What slot would they have had to have been in to have that 66% odds of picking no later than 5?

Just wondering if that’s based on 21 wins but not accounting for the 3 way tiebreaker drawing that could have still knocked us down to 4th or 5th slot. If we had ended up in the 5th slot after the tiebreakers, would it still have been 66% odds of picking five or better?
Click to expand...
3rd.

Tie-breakers are outside one's control, one strives for the best odds. I notice people bring-up the tie-breakers as a means of dismissing the importance of their final record, of having the 3rd worst record, but again, that is a rhetorical device for arguing that the odds don't matter.

But in event, here are the odds:

4th is 53%, 5th 44%.

Each drop by position is still a substantial drop. Not microscopic.

That argument is valid with regard to the 1st Pick.

I still don't understand people dismissing the odds as unimportant. They matter this situation and in every game of chance or gambling.
 
Sebastian said:
3rd.

Tie-breakers are outside one's control, one strives for the best odds. I notice people bring-up the tie-breakers as a means of dismissing the importance of their final record, of having the 3rd worst record, but again, that is a rhetorical device for arguing that the odds don't matter.

But in event, here are the odds:

4th is 53%, 5th 44%.

Each drop by position is still a substantial drop. Not microscopic.

That argument is valid with regard to the 1st Pick.

I still don't understand people dismissing the odds as unimportant. They matter this situation and in every game of chance or gambling.
Click to expand...
I would definitely not dismiss it but I thought it was with bringing up that even finishing with 21 wins and having not won the Boston game could have still had us in the 5th spot and thus the gap in outcome odds you presented in the earlier post(66% dropping to 36%) was missing some context

I say that fully preferring with every fiber in my being that we had lost against Boston
 
Sebastian said:
I still don't understand people dismissing the odds as unimportant. They matter this situation and in every game of chance or gambling.
Click to expand...
It's really not complicated: People are dismissing the odds because the draft lottery only gives you a *chance at a chance* for that big time guy. You still have to draft the right player, and develop him right, keep him healthy and on the court, keep him from throwing soup at people, etc.

The only time the lottery is a true lottery is if the top guy is named LeBron. Show me the LeBron caliber player of this draft, and I'll agree that tanking is the best move.

But you can't do that. In fact, by most accounts, the top 5 or so guys are all equally as good, which logically speaks against worrying about lottery odds since the 1st pick has very similar value to the 5th or 6th picks.

Or lower. Excellent players drop all the time, as evidenced by the nauseating amount of Haliburton posts on this forum. Scouting and development wins you the draft, not plastic balls.
 
Sebastian said:
3rd.

Tie-breakers are outside one's control, one strives for the best odds. I notice people bring-up the tie-breakers as a means of dismissing the importance of their final record, of having the 3rd worst record, but again, that is a rhetorical device for arguing that the odds don't matter.

But in event, here are the odds:

4th is 53%, 5th 44%.

Each drop by position is still a substantial drop. Not microscopic.

That argument is valid with regard to the 1st Pick.

I still don't understand people dismissing the odds as unimportant. They matter this situation and in every game of chance or gambling.
Click to expand...

Because the odds are just the odds and not the actual end goal here.

If the Cavs miss out, then we complain.

But it could turn out that wherever the Cavs end up odds wise is exactly where they wanted to be. Maybe that's the ping pong ball that ends up top 4.
 
Blazie said:
It's really not complicated: People are dismissing the odds because the draft lottery only gives you a *chance at a chance* for that big time guy. You still have to draft the right player, and develop him right, keep him healthy and on the court, keep him from throwing soup at people, etc.

The only time the lottery is a true lottery is if the top guy is named LeBron. Show me the LeBron caliber player of this draft, and I'll agree that tanking is the best move.

But you can't do that. In fact, by most accounts, the top 5 or so guys are all equally as good, which logically speaks against worrying about lottery odds since the 1st pick has very similar value to the 5th or 6th picks.

Or lower. Excellent players drop all the time, as evidenced by the nauseating amount of Haliburton posts on this forum. Scouting and development wins you the draft, not plastic balls.
Click to expand...
They are tanking. It is their only move for the remainder of the season.

Scouting and development does win the Draft, and it is great for the teams with the history of doing that.
 
Rich said:
Because the odds are just the odds and not the actual end goal here.

If the Cavs miss out, then we complain.

But it could turn out that wherever the Cavs end up odds wise is exactly where they wanted to be. Maybe that's the ping pong ball that ends up top 4.
Click to expand...
This is reasonable.

They seem to do better the worse their odds are.

Except in 2003.
 
Sebastian said:
Going from a 66% chance of a Top 5 pick to a 36% chance is not microscopic.

That is a demonstrably substantial shift in chances.

We should play poker sometime.

But... the Cavs had tiny odds in 2016, an 8.9% at the first pick in 2011, even smaller odds in 2013 and 2014, so if it is their destiny...
Click to expand...
In a roundabout way you finally got to my basic point.

The NBA has intentionally diluted the benefits of "tanking" to the point where the Cavs front office obviously doesn't care about whether they get the 66% chance or the 36% chance, otherwise they would have found a way to make sure we didn't stumble into the win over Boston.

What are the exact reasons for that, IDK. Maybe they're comfortable with the prospect that none of the lottery odds give you an absolute guarantee. Maybe they're comfortable with 3 or 4 players in this draft so they know they'll end up with one of them regardless of the reduction in lottery odds. Maybe they're more fearful of any accusations of tampering to tank than they are fearful of getting their 2nd or 3rd choice between their top 5 players on the board. Maybe there's other reasons that I can't even imagine.

But the reality is, the Cavs didn't do anything to intervene to ensure they got every possible ping pong ball. If it was so critical, and if it was such a lock towards improving the near term future of the franchise, wouldn't they have taken some steps to make sure we lost the last 3 games? I can only conclude that in their evaluation of the whole situation it simply doesn't make enough of a difference for them to intervene.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top