The Second Round with Josh and Andy, The Article
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:58 pm
On October 17, 2017 at approximately 8:30 PM Central Time, two Chicago basketball fans, Josh K and Andrew W held a game-changing podcast where cutting edge views were discussed, interesting theories were bandied about, and bold predictions were made. Though a record setting legion of rabid fans tried tuning into the podcast, what was talked about on the airwaves was deemed too dangerous, and high-ranking government officials did their best to make sure that this podcast was never heard by human ears. For it was too successful of a conversation, and one that would redefine communication in America as we know it. Luckily, heroes risked their lives to unearth the contents of this podcast, scouring the deep web for soundbytes and transcripts.
What was recoverable indicated that the Knicks were likely favorites to return to the Finals, merciless verbal lashings towards the Dallas Mavericks ownership for handing out terrible contracts instead of better utilizing a wealth of cap space for the acquisition of future assets, and above all else, eloquent, well thought out answers to listener questions.
What have you both learned about the nuances of trading in the league... The Do's and don'ts and trade etiquette
JK: There's a lot of discussion about winners and losers in trades, and a lot of that analysis takes place in a vacuum. As a result, I think a lot of GMs out there are unwilling to make a trade unless it's a guaranteed win, but I think you have to ignore all that and make trades that fit your team overall. The best trades, of course, are when both teams get what they want out of the deal, and that makes you look like a better trade partner to other GMs in the league for future business.
PBSL is a league with no real middle ground. Either you're in it to win it now, or you should be concerned about the future. If you're in the former camp, you're going to have to sacrifice future assets to give yourself the best chance of winning now, and if you're in the latter, you need to be willing to let go of big pieces for less than they might be worth just to acquire good set up for the future.
In terms of etiquette, I think it's always a good thing to respond as quickly as you can. Some GMs rarely ever respond, and some are just general pains to work with, so it makes trading more difficult if you have to restrict the number of teams you're able to do business with because you know some GMs won't be paying much attention and others are very difficult to make a fair deal with.
AW: This could probably be an article itself- "The Unwritten Rules of Trading." I try to be honest and directness is important. Due diligence and gathering information about the market is important, but I don't want to waste my time or the other party: giving a yea, nay, or, "I'll get back to you" in a reasonable time help. There's the obvious stuff too- asking for Anthony Davis for a second rounder is dumb as hell. Put yourself in the other person's shoes- would I accept that trade if I were on the other side?
I did commit a faux pas this offseason- while randomly chatting on Skype I carelessly led someone to think they were still in the running for a trade when I was already moving on. Courtesy goes a long way- telling someone they're out of it ASAP helps.
How about the biggest upgrades and downgrades of the offseason, and your continued thoughts on the new college players - how the players are progressing as well as how the draft classes are shaping up?
AW: It'd be self fellating to say the Magic, so I'll go with last year's Finalists- Gay and Jordan probably make the Knicks and Spurs favorites to make it a title rematch. Short term, the CP3 trade is great for Nick. The top of the West is tough as nails.
For obvious reasons, the Warriors are a major downgrade- but it's with a purpose. Ben is using this time to reload/LIVE HIS LIFE.
The college classes are showing they'll take some time. I'm actually ok with this- like in real life, there should be some randomness. Plus we're slowly seeing the fake guys come up- Buddy is everyone's buddy, Jeff Duren has returned from his exodus as a G/P. The new RCT system also adds another strategic element to the game that's pretty neat, and helps push things forward. In time, we'll be fawning over the fake guys as much as the real ones. Or we blow up the league and reset to the inaugural 1949 NBA season. Bring on the chain smoking white guys!
For the sake of argument, here's an unpopular take- in retrospect, I'd be ok with the taller but bum-filled standard draft classes. In real life, not every draft is filled with a top 3 guaranteed franchise player, why should we differ? BRING ME CHAOS.
JK: In terms of players and teams affected by TC, I'll direct you here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0 with apologies to Tani for hijacking his thread. I had the data compiled and figured why not just release every team's data since that's just as easy or easier of only releasing things on a team by team basis. Tani, if it cost you some points, shoot me a PM, and I'll make things right.
I think Andy covered it. The Magic cashed in on their future prospects with some win-now pieces. Conversely, the Jazz are going to be miserable after cashing in win-now pieces for future prospects, but that's the ebb and flow of the league. I think the biggest downgrades are competitive teams that aren't able to completely rebuild, but they're not able to completely compete, either. I'd much rather be at the helm of a team like the Jazz (not that I'd make all the same choices) that will be abysmal, but has rebuild assets than a team like the Pacers or the Thunder, who are kind of middling with questionable future prospects.
As for the rookie drafts, I love them. I think players like Duren, Matt Peck, and Ken Hen are showing that there is a lot of value coming out of these drafts for people who are patient. The players' skill sets aren't always traditional, but it forces us to be creative about how we play the game, and I think that keeps things from getting stale. Of course, since 30 teams are competing for 1 thing every year, a lot of people don't want the formula to change because they're still trying to master...or even have the opportunity to get the pieces needed...to master the old strategies.
What style of play do you feel has an advantage in the league currently - "size matters" (two or even three classic big men) or "small ball" (where you run 4 or 5 perimeter guys) or something else?
AW: I read somewhere on the forum that the game shifts with eras, so it makes sense that the advantage for winning is something more towards small ball and skilled players. There's still room for a big man, but ultimately winning involves having the best skilled talent, and most of that isn't in the front court (discounting two obvious outliers). At a macro level (and based on a half assed glance), the league tends to eschew most bigs- they're one dimensional and not worth their price tag.
That being said, could one determine this as a market inefficiency? I look at what Wig has done the last couple years- he has some solid big men at discount prices. Was this deliberate? I don't know, ask Wig. In a similar vein, I admire what J2 is doing in DC with his team of giants. I wish this is something that were more common in the league- intentionally weird, but purposefully constructed rosters. WHERE IS THE TEAM OF ALL FAST PLAYERS!?
JK: Looking back at the last handful of title winners and contenders, I think that any strategy can work as long as it's a coherent strategy that a team commits to and gets the right pieces to compete. San Antonio had two mega stars in Westbrook and Josh Smith last year. The Warriors put together a bomber team with a defensive centerpiece to mop up the glass a few seasons back. The championship Pelicans had a strong lineup with a little bit of everything. It's about executing your plan with the right players better than another team can execute theirs, regardless of what the plan is.
What is your opinion of the current award system? Do you think any awards should be added or removed?
AW: Every year without fail, there is some level of drama that comes with awards voting. Diving into Skype chat and looking at ballots, there are instances of self serving, petty, and downright questionable votes and statements. Not surprisingly, this is just like real life. I don't know really know how to overhaul the system (Olympic style multiple round voting? The new award coordinator would love that), but maybe this is the best.
While it's more work, I do wish we did MVP and All NBA voting. I think it'd be fun. And by fun I mean invite more pettiness and drama. Just tell me when to go to the Skype chat and drop the "Why you have to be mad?" clip.
JK: No matter how much more work Andy tries to add to my workload as Awards Coordinator, it's still much less work than Pick 'Em. In any case, I like some of Andy's ideas for new awards. It always seemed arbitrary to me that we have 6MOY and MIP that go to owner vote and ROY which doesn't.
One thing that I think needs improvement is the nominations system. I think nominations should help you make your case, but I don't think that un-nominated folks shouldn't be displayed on the ballot. For GMOY, I think all GMs should be eligible. Last year, for example, Ben made some great moves, but he wasn't on the ballot because he didn't have time to nominate himself. I'd leave the nominations off the ballot for all categories, list eligible nominees for something like 6MOY (the 30 bench players with the most minutes per game, for example) and let people make their cases, but not make their made cases make up the entirety of the ballots.
Please talk about TC. After TC was run the few guys that got hit, got hit rather hard. Jokic lost a ton in rebounding(close to 30 pts?). But it seemed like the number of players hit this time wasn't that bad. Do you think TC needs to be manually changed in any way? We've run TC like this for 28 seasons and it is a predictable cycle. Guys get hit, it's random, GMs get pissed and want to quit immediately after it happens. Is TC "just" and perfectly fine how it is?
AW: As I stated earlier, I like the randomness; it's as close to reality we can make it. I'm not sure what an ideal system would be that involved TC drops. Would we make it a RPG like grind where everyone grows except for certain ages? Institute drop limits by color/age?
I'm also curious what effect TC has on the average NBA player. How long is an average PBSL player's career compared with a real one? Is TC cycling players out too fast? Too slow? Sounds like a job for an intrepid statistician.
JK: I agree with Andy regarding the randomness of Training Camp. It keeps the game exciting and allows an element of chance to come into things. I would not make TC a process that can be more easily figured out. If anything, I would keep insurance around but enforce recommended for all teams to save time and headaches. From my testing, it doesn't seem to matter too much what you put in there. Giving everyone all 4s in test TCs produced just as wide a range as going recommended, coming up with something logical, or just using the leftover values from last year.
The duo then signed off the air while musical guest Tupac Shakur performed for the first time after faking his death. They then discussed all the clues he left on unreleased tracks and such. Though Josh and Andy picked the Knicks to win it all this year (over the Spurs and Timberwolves respectively), Tupac said that whoever won in the ECFs between the Bulls and the Magic would sweep the Finals. It was the greatest hour and a half of radio never heard.
What was recoverable indicated that the Knicks were likely favorites to return to the Finals, merciless verbal lashings towards the Dallas Mavericks ownership for handing out terrible contracts instead of better utilizing a wealth of cap space for the acquisition of future assets, and above all else, eloquent, well thought out answers to listener questions.
What have you both learned about the nuances of trading in the league... The Do's and don'ts and trade etiquette
JK: There's a lot of discussion about winners and losers in trades, and a lot of that analysis takes place in a vacuum. As a result, I think a lot of GMs out there are unwilling to make a trade unless it's a guaranteed win, but I think you have to ignore all that and make trades that fit your team overall. The best trades, of course, are when both teams get what they want out of the deal, and that makes you look like a better trade partner to other GMs in the league for future business.
PBSL is a league with no real middle ground. Either you're in it to win it now, or you should be concerned about the future. If you're in the former camp, you're going to have to sacrifice future assets to give yourself the best chance of winning now, and if you're in the latter, you need to be willing to let go of big pieces for less than they might be worth just to acquire good set up for the future.
In terms of etiquette, I think it's always a good thing to respond as quickly as you can. Some GMs rarely ever respond, and some are just general pains to work with, so it makes trading more difficult if you have to restrict the number of teams you're able to do business with because you know some GMs won't be paying much attention and others are very difficult to make a fair deal with.
AW: This could probably be an article itself- "The Unwritten Rules of Trading." I try to be honest and directness is important. Due diligence and gathering information about the market is important, but I don't want to waste my time or the other party: giving a yea, nay, or, "I'll get back to you" in a reasonable time help. There's the obvious stuff too- asking for Anthony Davis for a second rounder is dumb as hell. Put yourself in the other person's shoes- would I accept that trade if I were on the other side?
I did commit a faux pas this offseason- while randomly chatting on Skype I carelessly led someone to think they were still in the running for a trade when I was already moving on. Courtesy goes a long way- telling someone they're out of it ASAP helps.
How about the biggest upgrades and downgrades of the offseason, and your continued thoughts on the new college players - how the players are progressing as well as how the draft classes are shaping up?
AW: It'd be self fellating to say the Magic, so I'll go with last year's Finalists- Gay and Jordan probably make the Knicks and Spurs favorites to make it a title rematch. Short term, the CP3 trade is great for Nick. The top of the West is tough as nails.
For obvious reasons, the Warriors are a major downgrade- but it's with a purpose. Ben is using this time to reload/LIVE HIS LIFE.
The college classes are showing they'll take some time. I'm actually ok with this- like in real life, there should be some randomness. Plus we're slowly seeing the fake guys come up- Buddy is everyone's buddy, Jeff Duren has returned from his exodus as a G/P. The new RCT system also adds another strategic element to the game that's pretty neat, and helps push things forward. In time, we'll be fawning over the fake guys as much as the real ones. Or we blow up the league and reset to the inaugural 1949 NBA season. Bring on the chain smoking white guys!
For the sake of argument, here's an unpopular take- in retrospect, I'd be ok with the taller but bum-filled standard draft classes. In real life, not every draft is filled with a top 3 guaranteed franchise player, why should we differ? BRING ME CHAOS.
JK: In terms of players and teams affected by TC, I'll direct you here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0 with apologies to Tani for hijacking his thread. I had the data compiled and figured why not just release every team's data since that's just as easy or easier of only releasing things on a team by team basis. Tani, if it cost you some points, shoot me a PM, and I'll make things right.
I think Andy covered it. The Magic cashed in on their future prospects with some win-now pieces. Conversely, the Jazz are going to be miserable after cashing in win-now pieces for future prospects, but that's the ebb and flow of the league. I think the biggest downgrades are competitive teams that aren't able to completely rebuild, but they're not able to completely compete, either. I'd much rather be at the helm of a team like the Jazz (not that I'd make all the same choices) that will be abysmal, but has rebuild assets than a team like the Pacers or the Thunder, who are kind of middling with questionable future prospects.
As for the rookie drafts, I love them. I think players like Duren, Matt Peck, and Ken Hen are showing that there is a lot of value coming out of these drafts for people who are patient. The players' skill sets aren't always traditional, but it forces us to be creative about how we play the game, and I think that keeps things from getting stale. Of course, since 30 teams are competing for 1 thing every year, a lot of people don't want the formula to change because they're still trying to master...or even have the opportunity to get the pieces needed...to master the old strategies.
What style of play do you feel has an advantage in the league currently - "size matters" (two or even three classic big men) or "small ball" (where you run 4 or 5 perimeter guys) or something else?
AW: I read somewhere on the forum that the game shifts with eras, so it makes sense that the advantage for winning is something more towards small ball and skilled players. There's still room for a big man, but ultimately winning involves having the best skilled talent, and most of that isn't in the front court (discounting two obvious outliers). At a macro level (and based on a half assed glance), the league tends to eschew most bigs- they're one dimensional and not worth their price tag.
That being said, could one determine this as a market inefficiency? I look at what Wig has done the last couple years- he has some solid big men at discount prices. Was this deliberate? I don't know, ask Wig. In a similar vein, I admire what J2 is doing in DC with his team of giants. I wish this is something that were more common in the league- intentionally weird, but purposefully constructed rosters. WHERE IS THE TEAM OF ALL FAST PLAYERS!?
JK: Looking back at the last handful of title winners and contenders, I think that any strategy can work as long as it's a coherent strategy that a team commits to and gets the right pieces to compete. San Antonio had two mega stars in Westbrook and Josh Smith last year. The Warriors put together a bomber team with a defensive centerpiece to mop up the glass a few seasons back. The championship Pelicans had a strong lineup with a little bit of everything. It's about executing your plan with the right players better than another team can execute theirs, regardless of what the plan is.
What is your opinion of the current award system? Do you think any awards should be added or removed?
AW: Every year without fail, there is some level of drama that comes with awards voting. Diving into Skype chat and looking at ballots, there are instances of self serving, petty, and downright questionable votes and statements. Not surprisingly, this is just like real life. I don't know really know how to overhaul the system (Olympic style multiple round voting? The new award coordinator would love that), but maybe this is the best.
While it's more work, I do wish we did MVP and All NBA voting. I think it'd be fun. And by fun I mean invite more pettiness and drama. Just tell me when to go to the Skype chat and drop the "Why you have to be mad?" clip.
JK: No matter how much more work Andy tries to add to my workload as Awards Coordinator, it's still much less work than Pick 'Em. In any case, I like some of Andy's ideas for new awards. It always seemed arbitrary to me that we have 6MOY and MIP that go to owner vote and ROY which doesn't.
One thing that I think needs improvement is the nominations system. I think nominations should help you make your case, but I don't think that un-nominated folks shouldn't be displayed on the ballot. For GMOY, I think all GMs should be eligible. Last year, for example, Ben made some great moves, but he wasn't on the ballot because he didn't have time to nominate himself. I'd leave the nominations off the ballot for all categories, list eligible nominees for something like 6MOY (the 30 bench players with the most minutes per game, for example) and let people make their cases, but not make their made cases make up the entirety of the ballots.
Please talk about TC. After TC was run the few guys that got hit, got hit rather hard. Jokic lost a ton in rebounding(close to 30 pts?). But it seemed like the number of players hit this time wasn't that bad. Do you think TC needs to be manually changed in any way? We've run TC like this for 28 seasons and it is a predictable cycle. Guys get hit, it's random, GMs get pissed and want to quit immediately after it happens. Is TC "just" and perfectly fine how it is?
AW: As I stated earlier, I like the randomness; it's as close to reality we can make it. I'm not sure what an ideal system would be that involved TC drops. Would we make it a RPG like grind where everyone grows except for certain ages? Institute drop limits by color/age?
I'm also curious what effect TC has on the average NBA player. How long is an average PBSL player's career compared with a real one? Is TC cycling players out too fast? Too slow? Sounds like a job for an intrepid statistician.
JK: I agree with Andy regarding the randomness of Training Camp. It keeps the game exciting and allows an element of chance to come into things. I would not make TC a process that can be more easily figured out. If anything, I would keep insurance around but enforce recommended for all teams to save time and headaches. From my testing, it doesn't seem to matter too much what you put in there. Giving everyone all 4s in test TCs produced just as wide a range as going recommended, coming up with something logical, or just using the leftover values from last year.
The duo then signed off the air while musical guest Tupac Shakur performed for the first time after faking his death. They then discussed all the clues he left on unreleased tracks and such. Though Josh and Andy picked the Knicks to win it all this year (over the Spurs and Timberwolves respectively), Tupac said that whoever won in the ECFs between the Bulls and the Magic would sweep the Finals. It was the greatest hour and a half of radio never heard.