The classic non-scientific poll
by Desert-Fox on Mar 18, 2010 9:50 PM PDT
100 comments
I want the best draft pick possible, I want this team to have the opportunity to find another stud in the draft. So I am ok with the current wins and I want as many ping pong balls as there can be, and just maybe we move up a couple of spots. The Kings have already proved to me that they are finally heading in the right direction. Thank you Mr Tyreke. What is your opinion?
But I am ok with the Kings crushing LA in LA.
(This is a FanPost from a member of the Sactown Royalty community. The views expressed come from the member, and not Sactown Royalty staff.)
0 recs |
100 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I repeat
You play to win the games.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985......
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Mar 18, 2010 9:56 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I am not saying
I want the kings coaches or players to play to lose. I just saying I do not care if they lose these next 13 or 14 games.
So you needed to write a fanpost to express that?
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985......
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I just saying I do not care if they lose
Shakes head sadly and walks away.
by otis29 on Mar 19, 2010 4:38 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
This.
Grandmaster of the "Never let AnotherStupidSN forget what a Sham-Wow is" Order and Originator of the "Brock Ness Monster".
And that
No offense Desert-Fox (okay, some offense) But if you spent much time on STR, you would realize this is discussed ad nauseum. And what makes it worse it that it is a completely circular argument. The bottom line is, you root for the Kings to win if you are a real fan. Then if and when they lose, you say, “Well at least it means we are closer to a top pick.”
"And I never said I don’t like KMart. I just don’t think the duo is good for the team. They are essentially two of the same player"
Sammyp831.
by SavageBeast on Mar 19, 2010 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Actually, you kind of are saying you want them to play to lose
when you say “I want as many ping pong balls as there can be”. More ping pong balls means losses. You want losses. You want them to lose. This makes me queasy.
"Sometimes the capriciousness of youth anesthetizes common sense." -Let Geoff's words guide our patience this season.
by AnotherStupidSN on Mar 19, 2010 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions
i dunno
I can see desert-fox’s point. Just because I want the Kings to win, doesn’t mean I want as few ping pong balls as possible.
There’s a grey area where you definitely would love to see the young guys show progress and learn how to win and what it feels like, but you also would like as good an opportunity as possible to better the team through acquiring greater talent; a natural way to do that is via draft, and drafting as high as possible. For me its easy and difficult to ride the fence on the issue.
I'd say last year there was maybe a bit more grey area
since we were the worst team in the league and we were talking about having the best shot at the #1 pick, plus we already knew we were going to have a new coach the following year so there maybe wasn’t as much value in developing chemistry, stability, and momentum (though even last year I wanted us to win every game to finish-out the season, but I could comprehend the other viewpoint a bit more). But this year, I’d much rather have the chemistry, stability, and momentum that comes with winning than to slightly improve our odds in the draft.
"Sometimes the capriciousness of youth anesthetizes common sense." -Let Geoff's words guide our patience this season.
by AnotherStupidSN on Mar 19, 2010 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't get how there's a fence
If you are rooting for the Kings to lose, you are a suckass fan IMO. And if you are rooting for them to win, you are a good fan.
This is a completely separate issue from seeing the tangible benefit of a Kings loss to their lottery chances.
Since I understand that my rooting preferences don’t make a speck of difference on the actual outcome of the games themselves, I’m going to root for the Kings to win every time they take the floor.
by otis29 on Mar 19, 2010 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Yep
LPA and I haven’t been able to get out to Sac for a game this year. :( But I know I would not want to sit next to someone who claimed to be a Kings fan but was rooting for them to lose.
"And I never said I don’t like KMart. I just don’t think the duo is good for the team. They are essentially two of the same player"
Sammyp831.
by SavageBeast on Mar 19, 2010 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
You're right, I probably worded that incorrectly
I always want the Kings to win, so I root for them to win. I never root for losses, regardless of whether it boosts our chances at a higher lottery pick. But, at the same time, the higher our chances for a higher pick, the better.
Exactly
I root for the Kings but the key word is I do not “care” if they lose the next 13/14 games. Trust me I will care next year and the year after and so on. I am tired of losing. But I am willing to look at the potential positive of losing the next 13/14 games if we truly get better for it in the long run. I posted the poll because I know there is a very good alternative argument out there but I wanted to see how it shakes out. My goal is to win Championships and destroy LA in the process. There are many ways to get there. Which one is the fastest.
The one where you win games
"Sometimes the capriciousness of youth anesthetizes common sense." -Let Geoff's words guide our patience this season.
by AnotherStupidSN on Mar 19, 2010 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions
This is exactly right
Since I understand that my rooting preferences don’t make a speck of difference on the actual outcome of the games themselves, I’m going to root for the Kings to win every time they take the floor.
We as fans have no control over if our teams win. Since thats the case, don’t you want your team to win every time?
Grandmaster of the "Never let AnotherStupidSN forget what a Sham-Wow is" Order and Originator of the "Brock Ness Monster".
Does DaUconnDon know this?
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985......
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Play to win
This is a team that loses two out of every three when they are trying to win. There is no reason to try to lose.
Oh, and Peaches is a douche.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Mar 18, 2010 10:15 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
So you are the one that stole
my classic screen name. Stupid Hyphen.
Battle to the death!
"Sometimes the capriciousness of youth anesthetizes common sense." -Let Geoff's words guide our patience this season.
by AnotherStupidSN on Mar 19, 2010 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions
I think Stupid Hyphen is a great screen name
classic or otherwise
by betweentheeyes on Mar 19, 2010 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not a Raider fan but this seems appropriate.
Just Lose Baby!
The Sacramento Convergence concept offers Sacramento, the Central Valley, and the State a solution to feasibly construct a new multi-use Entertainment and Sports Complex.
Al Davis can say what he wants
but you have captured the truth of his team
by betweentheeyes on Mar 18, 2010 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions
This might make me a bad person....
but I voted for a better pick. With the talent in the top 4 of this draft, it’s highly likely that less wins this season will result in more wins in the next few seasons.
For the record, I don’t think they should tank, and I’m not actually rooting for losses….but at the end of the season, I have to admit that I’d probably be happier with 23 wins and a top 4 pick than I would be with 28 wins and the 10th pick.
The bottom two spots are already locked-up, at least
So even 23 wins doesn’t even come close to guaranteeing us a top 4 pick. It’s really out of our hands, so I say screw the ping pong balls, go out there play with some damn pride and I trust that GP is going to get us a player in the draft that will contribute to this team, top 4 pick or not.
"Sometimes the capriciousness of youth anesthetizes common sense." -Let Geoff's words guide our patience this season.
by AnotherStupidSN on Mar 19, 2010 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm also of the firm belief that both karma and David Stern owe the Kings
Therefore we’ll get a much higher pick than we expect. We technically got screwed last year, although we did end up with the best rookie. However, the Kings have a history of being screwed in general. So we’re owed on a karmic level. Plus, we have Stern’s blessing since Petrie drafted Omri. Speaking of Omri, we also have God’s chosen people rooting for us, thus we have God on our side too. So we have God, Karma, and Stern on our side. That’s a lot of higher power!
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Mar 19, 2010 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
and what made them change to being on our side?
and you have the order wrong it should be Stern, God then karma.
The first two picks will be the Wizards and Nets – so says the laws of economics.
by betweentheeyes on Mar 19, 2010 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions
I prefer the wins
There was an interesting article on another blog, TrueHoop I think, last week. It talked about young up and coming teams ending a lottery season on a good note and winning a bunch of games. That winning mentality tends to translate to the next season. A prime example being the Oklahoma City Thunder. They’re a 5th seed right now and could move up to the 4th spot. They had a terrible season last year but ended well. Not a whole lot has changed on that squad. They just kept that winning mindset.
The Kings need to win, period. They’ll still get a lottery pick. Tanking will do them no good. They genuinely sucked last year without having to tank and still didn’t get the number 1 pick.
www.mancancook.net
by vfettke on Mar 19, 2010 8:27 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
This. All of this.
"Sometimes the capriciousness of youth anesthetizes common sense." -Let Geoff's words guide our patience this season.
by AnotherStupidSN on Mar 19, 2010 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Right now, the only ball the Kings should care about is the orange leather one
and not give a shit about the little white ones. That goes the same for me and, in my opinion, anyone else that considers themselves a real fan.
"Sometimes the capriciousness of youth anesthetizes common sense." -Let Geoff's words guide our patience this season.
by AnotherStupidSN on Mar 19, 2010 10:03 AM PDT reply actions
It's not very big around
But it sure is short
You're preaching to the choir, brother.
"Sometimes the capriciousness of youth anesthetizes common sense." -Let Geoff's words guide our patience this season.
by AnotherStupidSN on Mar 19, 2010 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Have your cake and eat it too
I want 14 wins and the number 1 pick by luck. And will settle for a top 4.
"If my aunt had a set of nuts, she'd be my uncle"
by want2win on Mar 19, 2010 11:40 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
that was
redundant
"every once in a while a kernel of truth...uhh... corn is revealed in my usual pile of poop" - betweentheeyes
Have your cake and eat it too
I want 14 wins and the number 1 pick by luck. And will settle for a top 4.
"If my aunt had a set of nuts, she'd be my uncle"
by want2win on Mar 19, 2010 11:41 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
that was redundant :)
"every once in a while a kernel of truth...uhh... corn is revealed in my usual pile of poop" - betweentheeyes
Win them all
GP showed us it’s not where you draft but who you draft. Last year he got us Oscar. This year I expect Bill or Wilt.
by King of Fulton on Mar 19, 2010 12:33 PM PDT reply actions
NEWSFLASH!!!!!!
we got the 4th pick with the worest record last year… why tank now and destroy the baby royals spirits????
F#ck Kobe Bryant.
F#ck Shaquille O’Neal
F#ck Phil Jackson
F#ck Rick Fox (twice)
F#ck Sasha Vujacic
F#ck Robert Horry
F#ck Derek Fisher
F#ck Dick Bavetta, Bob Delaney and Ted Bernhardt – I’m still waiting for them to have their jerseys retired at Staples.
F#ck Every Laker fan who comes to Arco Arena, wears his hat sideways and stands up and cheers with his arms out and his back to the floor whenever Kobe scores a basket.
Oh, and F#ck Jack Nicholson, Dyan Cannon, and that silver haired douchebag wearing the snakeskin boots.
Who’d I miss?
by B-RAD on Mar 19, 2010 2:01 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Dick Bavetta, Bob Delaney and Ted Bernhardt – I’m still waiting for them to have their jerseys retired at Staples.
I loved that…great one. Trust me one day…one day LA will suck again and all those phony Hollywood people will be gone and If we choose, because we will be the better team by then. Revenge. We let all those LA
“fill in the blank”hear it from us.
You forgot, "I don't care about wins or losses, just play good basketball"
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
The greatest impact player in NBA History - Tim Donaghy
by HighTops on Mar 19, 2010 2:11 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Another reason to win...
We’ve got a Rookie of the Year award on the line. It would not look good for Tyreke if the team were to tank.
To be the best, you have to do your best. Otherwise, you are only second-rate.
I haven't read any of the comments above so I am sorry if I am repeating everyone
But this post makes me want to vomit.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
Let me ask you, in a different way
Would you rather had more wins last year and lost out on our chance to get Tyreke Evans. It could have, easily happened. I am glad we got Tyreke and I think we are missing one more special piece, maybe that piece is on the team already but he has not step up yet. But another high draft pick gives us a better chance. Only time will tell.
Honestly
The Kings could have had 5 more wins last season and probably still would have scored the 4th pick in the draft.
great way to not answer the question
Will be sipping virgin peach cocktails with Mark S. Allen, Grant Napear, and Tyreke Evans when the Kings win the championship.
by Pollard4LIfe on Mar 20, 2010 4:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Already asked and answered
It’s a ridiculous exercise. I have no control over whether this team wins or loses. Therefore I will root for them to win.
His premise that more wins last season would have prevented us from getting ’Reke is simply unknowable, and most likely false.
Unless, of course, this team somehow would have won an additional 10 or so games. Not very likely.
It is unknowable
but the more wins the team had, the less likely being able to draft Tyreke would have been. It’s like a dirty secret that nobody seems to want to admit – more losses lead to a better draft pick, better draft picks tend to lead to better players (or at the least a better chance to get a better player), and better players lead to better teams. Teams don’t tank because they hate their fans – they tank because they place more importance on improving the team than they do on the integrity of competition. It might not be honest, and we don’t have to like that it happens, but it’s the way it is.
As a fan, of course you root for them no matter what, but if the Kings tanked for a better chance to get Derrick Favors, I think I could forgive them.
Put Desert-Fox’s question this way – would you be happier right now if we did manage to win another 10, or even 15, games last year, and then drafted Jrue Holiday? Or are you happier that we survived a miserable 17 win season and had the opportunity to draft the best player in the class?
On a side note, if the losses come without Reke the rest of the year and he gets jobbed out of the ROY award, that’ll sting a little.
Really?
So if the Kings had 5 more wins last season, they wouldn’t have ended up with the #4 pick or better? You might want to take a look at the standings again.
Your premise is ridiculous – first, I don’t believe last year’s Kings team tanked in any manner. And no way would they have the capability of getting 10 or 15 more wins. With decent coaching all season long, maybe they get another 3 or 4 wins, but that was a purely horsecrap basketball team.
That being said, 10 or 15 additional wins would certainly impact draft position. But if the Kings were capable of 27 to 32 wins last season, then more deserving teams (or less deserving, depending on your point of view) would have a greater chance of winning the lottery.
That’s the intention of the system, not to reward franchises for acting in a nefarious manner.
“Tanking” is unforgivable IMO, for any team.
by otis29 on Mar 20, 2010 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hoping for loses doesn't seem like fanhood to me.
I always hope the Kings win, and actively cheer for them to do so. I’m not terribly distraught when they lose, unless it’s a game like last night, where they really should have won and the loss comes to a bitch ass punk like Blow-Job.
We tried the worst record in the league route, let’s try the mid-lottery seed route and see how that works out.
Don't say stupid shit. You won’t be perceived as stupid. - pookeyguru
by Kfan in Korea on Mar 20, 2010 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm definitely not hoping for losses
Like Otis said, rooting for or against the team doesn’t have an impact on the results, so I’ll keep rooting for them. I’m just recognizing losing might actually be what’s best for the future of the team right now.
to review the lottery system
Lottery chances per order:
1st – 250 chances
6th – 63
7th – 43
8th – 28
9th – 17
10th -11
As High Tops has posted: NO team has won the lottery in it’s current form* with less than a 9th spot. Just shooting for #1 since 1994 the 15 lotteries show a mean of having the #4 spot. Using my rudimentary, caveman grasp of statistics, I will add the median is 3, the mode is 3 and the range is 1-9, with no 4 and no 8. (I am the Will Solomon of statistics).
- The weighted system was first employed in 1990. with 66 chances in all. 1993 saw the team with the best record Orlando at 41-41 get the first pick with only one chance (1.52%). The system changed to a 1000 ball system (1996-98 were the three years that the expansion teams were excluded so their spots in the 14 member were removed from the system lowering the 1000 ball number to 593, 727, 696 respectively). The new system increased the chances for the top three teams but lowered the precentages for the bottom of the lottery). I am summarizing all of this from Wikipedia. I am going to investigate this further.
by betweentheeyes on Mar 20, 2010 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I started a more in depth study of lottery winners
Winning the lottery is not just about getting the first pick. It is moving up – so one should include the 1, 2, and 3 picks (one could also approach it from the back end and see which teams have moved to a worse pick) when the simple law of statistics finally made it’s way through my concrete brain casing. It doesn’t matter. Let me refer to those interested to DX
A chance is a chance. It is not karma. It is not a condemnation nor a reward.
I could pick 1,2,3, 4, 5, 6 for the California Lotto and I have as great a chance of winning as anyone else. And if I won I could have those same numbers next week with the same chance of success or failure.
Of course, the draft is a fluid process. Tyreke Evans became available at #4 because Memphis went with Thabust. Thabeet played the system – he did half a combine and only did private workouts for the top 4 teams. DeJaun Blair dropped all the way to #37. There are always deals by agents, deals by teams, sudden change in choices (#5, #6 by Minny), etc. This year I expect DeMarcus Cousins to go anywhere from #2 to #9 as it is hard to ignore both his size and talent as well as his unavoidable behavior and intelligence questions (he should hire Thabeet’s agent).
I love the lottery process and the draft. ti is exciting. I look forward to the time when the Kings don’t participate.
by betweentheeyes on Mar 20, 2010 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn't say anything about 5 more wins
And you’re still avoiding the intent of his question – that sometimes losses can benefit a team in the long term, and they certainly benefited the team a great deal last year. There was a bigger gap in the standings last year, so it would have taken more than 5 wins to have a dramatic effect on the draft standing, but that doesn’t make the point any less valid. And this year, even 3 wins could move the Kings up or down 5 spots.
Of course the players on the court should give 100% all the time, but tanking isn’t always that black and white. You could make the argument that Petrie tanked by trading Miller and Salmons in the middle of the season instead of using them to win as many games as possible before trading them in the summer. You could make the argument that this year’s team has tanked by playing Omri and Donte instead of Nocioni sometimes, even though Nocioni is probably a better overall player right now. I’m fully in favor of both of those decisions, even though they probably cost the team some wins. That’s the type of tanking I’m ok with. You can call it getting experience for the young guys, but I’d be willing to bet that draft position is at least in the back of their minds as well.
I think we've delved into semantical and philosophical areas
So I’ll just ask two simple questions:
Will you root for the Kings to lose games down the stretch (especially close games)?
Would you support a team that doesn’t make its best effort to win games down the stretch (i.e. tanking)?
I’m an adamant “no” on both of those issues. One makes you a bad fan, the other would make you a fan of a shitty franchise IMO.
It's less about good fan vs bad fan
and more about idealism vs pragmatism
by Pollard4LIfe on Mar 20, 2010 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Fan = Short for Fanatic
Pragmatism has no place here.
Take it easy on the bad fan part
I could just as easily say that anyone that doesn’t care about draft position is a bad fan because they don’t care about improving the team – they only care about enjoying themselves in the moment. (I don’t believe that – just offering the opposite point of view). Taking a look at the poll results, you must think over half the people here are bad fans.
For the record, no I’m not rooting for losses. Losing always sucks, but I can’t ignore the ugly silver lining – the fact that losing might result in more talent next year when the team is more competitive. I root for the players to play well and to improve, but I’ve been a bit indifferent toward the actual outcome of the games all season (well, once the fairy tale start was over, anyway). Despite that, I’ve enjoyed this season more than any other since C-Web got hurt because I’ve seen a lot of reasons to be optimistic about the future.
To answer your second question, yes, I supported the team’s decision last season to dump two of the best players and fire the coach midseason (unless you are Pat Riley, teams that want to win more games wait until the end of the season to fire their coach). Like it or not, we might not have Tyreke right now if they focused solely on winning as many games as possible last year.
I probably wouldn’t respect a player that didn’t put forth his best effort on the court, and I definitely wouldn’t want a coach instructing a player to do so, but I can forgive management for making a difficult decision like that to improve the future of the team. I could also forgive PW for playing Omri and Donte over Nocioni down the stretch, or playing McGuire and Dorsey a few extra minutes a night to *ahem…get a better look at them before the offseason.
Nah, not going to take it easy
That wouldn’t be me.
You seem to be taking my criticism personally, but then you say you aren’t rooting for losses. So I’m not sure you are my target audience, and think we are mostly on the same page.
One thing I will disagree with you on is this:
To answer your second question, yes, I supported the team’s decision last season to dump two of the best players and fire the coach midseason (unless you are Pat Riley, teams that want to win more games wait until the end of the season to fire their coach). Like it or not, we might not have Tyreke right now if they focused solely on winning as many games as possible last year.
I’m probably not getting my point across properly. To me, those moves only helped the team in the long run. The team wasn’t tanking so much as creating cap space and giving their young players a better chance to develop on court. Plus, I’m not convinced the team would have been tangibly better recordwise if they had stood pat.
When I talk about tanking, it’s about sitting your guys down the stretch with pseudo-fake injuries, and running out lineups that are neither about player development or winning ballgames. It may be a hard term to quantify, but I think we know it when we see it.
I would have trouble supporting a team that practiced that kind of tanking.
Nah, I don't take anything here personally
And we probably are closer to being on the same page than I thought too. Anyway, I thought of a better way to express my feelings on the “rooting for losses” point….
Have you ever had a friend with a bitchy girlfriend? You don’t want him to get hurt, and you’re not really rooting for them to fight, but sometimes you just wish she would dump him so he could draft Derrick Favors.
heh
Ok, fair enough. I think it’s a serious analogy fail, since you are equating (I think) Kings’ victories with your friend’s bitchy girlfriend. But I get what you are saying.
Jeez - next time I'll equate you to the bitchy girlfriend
Kidding. The analogy was supposed to be comparing losses to a breakup – both painful but might be for the best in the long term. But I see your problem with it.
Are you implying that Derrick Favors is a better girflfriend?
If your friend is Geoff Petrie I am really confused.
by betweentheeyes on Mar 20, 2010 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Exactly
And it’s not just about getting pick 1-4. It’s about letting Petrie select his pick as earliest as possible. Remember when Petrie wanted to pick Noah, but the Bulls got him at #9? I don’t know about you guys, but I would’ve sacrificed a few wins to get Noah over Hawes.
by Pollard4LIfe on Mar 20, 2010 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions
How would you have "sacrificed"?
You would have supported tanking, or you would have used your powers of fandom to root the team on to loss after loss??
Sounds silly, doesn’t it?
totally nailed me on that one
No, I don’t have magic David Stern powers that I can call upon to lose games or fix drafts. However, I don’t see how that’s relevant.
by Pollard4LIfe on Mar 20, 2010 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions
actually the kings, if they lost less, could have gotten the thunder's pick and could have picked tyreke at #3.
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Mar 22, 2010 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions
The Clips, Griz and Thunder
all won more games than the Kings.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
if we were talking nfl, then this arguement would i guess hold a little more water (although still makes me want to vomit)
Could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?
by wallywagon11 on Mar 22, 2010 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Congratulations on last night's loss
"Sometimes the capriciousness of youth anesthetizes common sense." -Let Geoff's words guide our patience this season.
by AnotherStupidSN on Mar 20, 2010 9:24 AM PDT reply actions
Chicago
landed Derrick Rose in 2008 after winning 33 games and finishing with 9th worst record in the league.
Portland and Seattle landed Greg Oden and Kevin Durant in 2007 after winning 32 and 31 games respectively and finishing with the 5th and 6th worst records (the Kings won 33 that year).
It-is-a-lottery. You can improve your odds, but at the end of the day it comes down to luck. Why subject the players (many of whom are the core of your future) to intentional mismanagement in order to secure an extra ping pong ball or two? That just makes no sense, especially since the team has shown the penchant for losing two out of every three games when they are trying their hardest.
No tanks.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
by section214 on Mar 20, 2010 9:57 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
selling your soul v. enhancing your future
it is a tussle over the spirit and integrity of the game.
I think it is dishonest to the ticket purchasers for those games – with the blanket caveat, if it works it is worth it. It is disingenious and yet it is the standard, however “wrong” that the League goes by. A philosophical discussion will be never ending: from karma to all is fair and love and war.
by betweentheeyes on Mar 20, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
i need a full time editor
all is fair in love and war
by betweentheeyes on Mar 20, 2010 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions
That's basically the dilemma
If somebody was to simply say that tanking was “wrong”, I wouldn’t argue. However, I won’t be convinced that it doesn’t help teams improve.
But it's not automatic
Look at OKC. Has they tanked down the stretch last year, they would not have created the momentum that they carried into this year, and they would not have lucked into the 3rd pick.
All tanking gets you is a mathematically better chance of getting lucky. There is no sure thing. So with that being said, why would you forfeit the opportunity of Landry/Hawes/Thompson playing together? Why would you deprive your fanbase of seeing Tyreke Evans play (injury notwithstanding, of course)? Why would you shut down Francisco Garcia after he worked his arse off to get back? Why would you stymie the progress that Beno Udrih has made? Why would you stall the growth of Donté Green and Omri Casspi?
I just don’t see the sense in it, considering the 1-3 worst spots are a virual lock. The KIngs are going to have to get lucky to climb into the top three picks anyway, so it just comes down to the degree of luck needed. For me, that is not worth flushing the last month of the season, especially since we are likely to lose the majority of our games without resorting to tanking.
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
If a 5% better chance at the lotto and a guaranteed 1-3 spots higher in the draft doesn't put the team in a better position
then what about a 15% higher chance? Or 40%? or 99%? Does it have to be a complete stone cold lock to get John Wall for tanking to be a practical strategy for improvement?
Anything that gives the team a better chance at a better player improves the team. Whether or not it’s fair or moral is another question entirely. I’m just saying that realistically, the worse the record is at the end of the season, the better the opportunity to improve the team will be.
Also, no team in recent memory has completely shut it down to tank. No player wants to play for a team that is tanking, and no fan base wants to admit that their team is tanking, so whenever it happens, it’s always something subtle that the team can deny. Like playing a young player more minutes over a veteran, or sitting a guy with a minor injury. It’s an ugly truth, but most lottery teams do these things when they don’t have a shot at the playoffs because the incentive is there to do it.
It has happened. In response, the NBA has issued "rules"
But as they have never been enforced I don’t know what the punishment is or would be.
by betweentheeyes on Mar 20, 2010 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions
The only really obvious case of tanking that I can remember was a few years back when the Griz and the Clippers were fighting over the 6th seed
I know they changed the seeding rules after the season, but do you remember if the NBA issued any kind of warning or punishment for that game? Or did Stern try to convince people that both teams just had a bad day?
a warning was issued
and I think this was the punishment
yeah, that’s effective.
by betweentheeyes on Mar 20, 2010 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions
The Psychological Benefits and Liabilities to the Practice of "Tanking" at the end of the Season in NBA Games.
This could be the basis for an interesting Masters or Doctoral thesis. It would be presumed unlikely that no team at the beginning of the season would have the mindset to lose games (tank). Somewhere along the line, as teams either find that they have a chance to make the playoff standings or don’t, a decision is made to either continue to try to win (without any benefit to go to the playoffs) or to lose (with the benefit to get a better lottery pick for the future). The only benefit to winning is the temporary good feelings that a win brings to the team and the fans. The benefit of losing is the possible long-term benefit of getting a potential star basketball player for the future. To complicate the picture, teams have to deal with the issues of integrity of the game. Because it would be viewed as “bad” to deliberately lose games, teams who come to the decision to lose games have to hide the fact that they are losing on purpose. This can be hard on the overall morale of the team and fans. A team has to decide whether it is worth the long-term benefits to undergo the short-term pain of losing. It is a complex decision in which a benefit and liability analysis is made by each team.
To be the best, you have to do your best. Otherwise, you are only second-rate.
timing and caveats
I would venture that both New Jersey and Minnesota realized they were lottery bound as they battled over the worst records of all time the first 20 games of this season. I would add Washington before the Arenas debacle and confirmed when he and Crittendon were suspended. The Eastern Conference makes it hard to miss the playoffs with a bad record but the All-Star break seemed to be lottery declaration day for most of the bottom 10 of the Association.
Morale has a short memory. We are bombarded with information overload and it has instilled a form of A.D.D. there is no room for elephants. The Kings were awful last year. One Tyreke later and November had everyone talking playoffs. Ad nauseum: Winning cures all ills.
by betweentheeyes on Mar 20, 2010 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
well said bte.
Plus, the wolves and Nets can also dramatically make their rosters better with picks in the June draft that if, the bad records hold form in the lottery, would see the Nets taking John Wall and the Wolves Evan Turner.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985......
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
The Psychological Benefits and Liabilities to the Practice of “Tanking” at the end of the Season in NBA Games. This could be the basis for an interesting Masters or Doctoral thesis.
Spoken like someone who has already a degree in another form of psychoanalysis.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985......
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
lol
Lots of psychoanalysis.
To be the best, you have to do your best. Otherwise, you are only second-rate.
I will refer you to the Louisville Cardinals of 1980 who won the NCAA with The Doctors of Dunk
Darrell Grifith was Dr. Dunkenstein (former Kings forward Rodney McCray was a part of the starting five)
just adding some trivial nonsense.
by betweentheeyes on Mar 20, 2010 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions
So I see that Dr. Dunk (enstein)
participated in the 1985 NBA Slam Dunk Contest. I hadn’t realized that the Slam Dunk contest had been around that long.
Thanks for sharing the trivia.
To be the best, you have to do your best. Otherwise, you are only second-rate.
The dunk contest was originally held in 1976
Between David “skywalker” Thompson and Dr J aka Julius Erving. In the ABA no less.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985......
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
David Thompson was the bomb before anyone else (one could argue that Elgin Baylor pre empted)
He was the first NBA player to dominate by sheer athletecism. Bill Walton and the Bruins were on march to remain undefeated for another season* until they played NC State’s Wolfpack and David Thompson (6’4" with a 48 inch vertical)..
Thompson was on the way to being an all time NBA great when he succumbed to the two big death knolls of the time – Drugs and Disco. Anyone who ever saw this guy play became enchanted with his gifts. It lead to too much money and too many chances and a career that could have been that never was. It is a sad but great story and I encourage every one hear to explore it. In relation to the slam dunk contest it should be mentioned that at the time due to the Lew Alcindor rule dunking was not allowed in college basketball at the time. In his last college game (non conference, so it didn’t “count”) he dunked for his last shot. He was given a T, the score disallowed and he was subbed out of the game to wild applause. Forget TNT, basketball knows drama.
*some tidbits: UCLA was so dominant for so many years it is hard to imagine. After Alcindor, John Wooden got the big red head – Bill Walton, another phenomenon. Walton had never lost a basketball through high school, freshman ball(not allowed to be college varsity at the time) and through his senior season. He was a part of UCLA’s 88 game win streak when they lost to Notre Dame that year. They played NC State in the semis to double OT with Thompson’s team victorious halting UCLA’s championships at 7 in a row.
by betweentheeyes on Mar 21, 2010 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions
I thought Houston ended UCLAs 88 win streak.
EvilCowtownInc: Screwin Suckaz over since 1985......
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Nope
Elvin Hayes’ Houston team beat Alcindor’s UCLA team, but it was Walton’s team that was part of the 88 game streak. Was it Austin Carr that played for that Notre Dame team?
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
Dantley and Co. coached by Digger Phelps
I looked up Austin Carr (known as Mr. Cavalier in Cleveland, which is pretty neat as Geoff Petrie has been known as Mr. Blazer) and one of only two to have > 1,000 points in a season (the other is Pistol Pete). He averaged 34.5 ppg for his college career.
The Game was played in January 1974. UCLA was up by 70- 59 with 3:30 to go and won 71- 70. Austin Carr scored 46 in Jan 1971 to record the last Bruin defeat and thus the start of the record streak.
by betweentheeyes on Mar 21, 2010 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
