Discussing a quality product on the court (poll)

[VF21]

Well, duh. Of course we'd try to drive you nuts, Mr. Bricklayer.



I think in all honesty there are as many possible different answers to this question as there are drops of water in the sea. Everyone may agree on some things but we each take away something different from the whole Kings fan experience. And it's what, I think, keeps people like you - who have high expectations - around during times like this. And I love it.

 

[uolj]

"not willing to stink it up" and "best possible play" are synonymous to me. the two choices are saying the same thing in different voices (choice 2 is moderate, choice 5 is aggressive). that's why no one picked choice 5.

Option 2 favors strongly an attempt to rebuild. (I imagine "not willing to stink it up" means that sucking horribly is not a good option, but some down years are ok).

Option 5 leaves no room for the idea of a rebuild. The team should always focus on putting the best possible team together to win games immediately with little to no regard for building a team to do well in the future.

Big difference. Again, it's a 1 to 5 scale.

 

[VF21]

That's YOUR interpretation, uolj, which is fine. What some of us are trying to say is we aren't reading the same thing into it... and when you create a poll, you have to worry about how different people will read the potential responses. It's clear here that rergardless of how hard fnordious tried to cover the spectrum, it just didn't work.

And as 've said above I think that's because there are just way too many different responses possible to lump into a convenient little poll.

 

[uolj]

I guess fnordius can clarify whether I'm right or not, but the intent of the poll is to gauge general opinion, not to be a perfect representation. While I often am the one being a stickler for accuracy and clarity, I just thought this one was pretty clear.

 

[Jerryaki]

Option 2 favors strongly an attempt to rebuild. (I imagine "not willing to stink it up" means that sucking horribly is not a good option, but some down years are ok).

which is fine because it's your interpretation. "not willing" and "some down years are ok" are opposites of each other. but it's your interpretation because you are adding your own rationale to it.

polls, especially polls where the choices are intended to be on a scale are very difficult to frame properly. every word counts, heck, even the scale (why is this 1-5? why not 1-7? 1-9?) counts.

 

[uolj]

Jeez, folks. Why be so technical about it?

You get the point, right? The choices were listed in order from most favoring "tanking" to least. Where do you fall? If you disagree that the poll was intended to be like that, then feel free to answer this question with a post. Where do you fall on this scale:

Win Now ---------------------------------------- Ignore Now
---- 5 ---------- 4 ---------- 3 ---------- 2 ---------- 1 ----
Ignore Future ------------------------------------ Win Future

 

[VF21]

Actually, no I didn't get that at all...

And I don't agree with your assumption that "win now" and "ignore future" are one end of the same spectrum with "ignore now" and "win future" at the other end.

 

[Jerryaki]

you realize this is the kingsfans.com messageboard. being technical is a specialty. besides, this whole tangent started off of Slim's post, you should've just responded then with "why be so technical."

the words were not necessary. if you slapped up this poll using your format, #s 1 to 5, no text, then that is the simplest and clearest poll.

***
just read VF21's post. and she's right; as the poll taker, you already assigned the values of "tanking" in your head, whereas others may view it as "rebuild." that affects the bias when reading these choices.

in closing, i hate polls with scale.

 

[uolj]

Actually, no I didn't get that at all...

And I don't agree with your assumption that "win now" and "ignore future" are one end of the same spectrum with "ignore now" and "win future" at the other end.

It's about priorities, not about results. Do you prioritize win now and give little priority to the future, or do you prioritize winning in the future with little priority for winning now.

The obvious additional context is the assumption that winning now means almost no chance for a championship while "winning in the future" means attempting to build a true championship contender.

 

[VF21]

What difference does it make to fans? Especially if you're opting for "prioritize winning in the future with little priority for winning now"? Are you honestly saying you'd pay money to attend a game where there was pretty much NO chance of winning?

I agree with Jerryaki, except I thought fnordius started the poll?

 

[uolj]

Are you honestly saying you'd pay money to attend a game where there was pretty much NO chance of winning?

Of course. And apparently 65% of the poll respondents agree (although I don't agree with your assumption that the team will have pretty much NO chance of winning).

If the team is building towards being a contender, then maybe the product on the floor during the lean times won't be pretty. However, we all want them to play hard and we all want the people on the floor to try their hardest, so there's no reason to think they can't be fun to watch.

Some people might be happier if the team doesn't win that particular game because it will help them be better in the future, others might agree with option 1 but still root forthe team while they are watching because they get enjoyment out of that singular experience despite their overall preference for losses. Either way, the majority of fans apparently are ok if the team sucks for a short time in order to get better, and those people will still be fans.

 

[fnordius]

I guess fnordius can clarify whether I'm right or not, but the intent of the poll is to gauge general opinion, not to be a perfect representation. While I often am the one being a stickler for accuracy and clarity, I just thought this one was pretty clear.

You were quite correct, BTW.

 

[Superman]

Mavs fan???

Personal insults? Is this what you are going to resort to to get me to acknowledge the SuperBowl beyond a sentence or two in the official thread?

I have to defend my honor. And you know darned well I am talking about the Celts.

I really thought you were talking about the Mavs and their recent Kidd trade. I must have confused you with someone else ...

And you know that I have to give you hell about the Super Bowl. I can't help it.

But I did agree with you, so that should count for something.

 

[Superman]

Well, duh. Of course we'd try to drive you nuts, Mr. Bricklayer.



I think in all honesty there are as many possible different answers to this question as there are drops of water in the sea. Everyone may agree on some things but we each take away something different from the whole Kings fan experience. And it's what, I think, keeps people like you - who have high expectations - around during times like this. And I love it.

The thing about polls, in my opinion, is that the creator can't possibly cover all the possible opinions in his poll choices. The point of the poll isn't to express everyone's opinion; that's what the thread is for. The point of the poll is to get a general idea of how everyone feels on the topic.

If you think of it as a multiple choice quiz, you pick the option that most accurately reflects how you feel. If none of them even come close, then you don't vote. But if you have minor quibbles about the wording of the options, then I think it's a cop-out to not vote or to vote "other".

This, by the way, isn't directed at any one person. I just think that the idea behind a poll isn't to cover every possible angle, but to get a general idea of which direction the majority is leaning on a topic.

 

[VF21]

But the wording of the choices can have an incredible impact on the outcome of the poll. That's all I was saying...

I have a headache.

 

[Jerryaki]

You were quite correct, BTW.

can you also clarify what you meant by choice 2 please?

 

[fnordius]

can you also clarify what you meant by choice 2 please?

That was an attempt to draw a clear line between those who considered eventual contender status to be the top priority (as in the case of answer #1), but who would definitely disapprove of tanking, for example, or who might be hesitant to blow the team up for Potapenkos and picks.

If I had it to do over again, it looks like I could focus the whole poll on that split, since 85% of respondents picked #1 or #2.

 

[Jerryaki]

This, by the way, isn't directed at any one person. I just think that the idea behind a poll isn't to cover every possible angle, but to get a general idea of which direction the majority is leaning on a topic.

i completely agree with you. but also, my point during this discussion is that the way a poll question and choices are posed has a very real ability to affect the respondents' choices. so the real point is that "minor quibbles over wording" and the "spirit of the answers" shouldn't be accepted in polls; the wording has a TREMENDOUS effect on the outcome.

 

[fnordius]

Are you honestly saying you'd pay money to attend a game where there was pretty much NO chance of winning?

I seem to recall that when MJ's Bulls came to town, Arco still sold out. So either a lot of fans would do exactly that, or we must be an incredibly gullible bunch of people.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

That was an attempt to draw a clear line between those who considered eventual contender status to be the top priority (as in the case of answer #1), but who would definitely disapprove of tanking, for example, or who might be hesitant to blow the team up for Potapenkos and picks.

And I object to this. In fact, I'm inclined to call it deceitful. It's misleading to suggest that stinking is the same as tanking, when it clearly isn't. If you have a group of kids go out there and give it their all every night, and they get throttled to the tune of 32-50, but you can clearly see improvement, that ain't tanking.

Tanking is not playing kids and losing. And tanking is not trading your "best" players to give the kids more time. Tanking is having more talented players on your roster and intentionally not playing them, or having your players go out and intentionally sandbag it on the court in order to lose more games. THAT'S tanking. Trading a talented player for picks and expirings is not tanking, it's the first phase of rebuilding.

EDIT - I'm sick of people either not understanding the concept, or intentionally misconstruing the concept to create a straw man they can knock down, and/or incite a reaction from other people: NOBODY advocates tanking. Tanking is cheating the game. But it's time that people stop propping up an incorrect definition of tanking, and saying that it's wrong. If you don't want to rebuild, if you don't want to start over with a youth movement, then say that. But don't call it tanking, because that's not what it is.

 

[fnordius]

And I object to this. In fact, I'm inclined to call it deceitful. It's misleading to suggest that stinking is the same as tanking, when it clearly isn't. If you have a group of kids go out there and give it their all every night, and they get throttled to the tune of 32-50, but you can clearly see improvement, that ain't tanking.

Tanking is not playing kids and losing. And tanking is not trading your "best" players to give the kids more time. Tanking is having more talented players on your roster and intentionally not playing them, or having your players go out and intentionally sandbag it on the court in order to lose more games. THAT'S tanking. Trading a talented player for picks and expirings is not tanking, it's the first phase of rebuilding.

EDIT - I'm sick of people either not understanding the concept, or intentionally misconstruing the concept to create a straw man they can knock down, and/or incite a reaction from other people: NOBODY advocates tanking. Tanking is cheating the game. But it's time that people stop propping up an incorrect definition of tanking, and saying that it's wrong. If you don't want to rebuild, if you don't want to start over with a youth movement, then say that. But don't call it tanking, because that's not what it is.

I'm sure that a few people would advocate tanking, if they thought that was what it would take. I've heard my share of fans suggesting that we ought to have someone try to injure an opposing player, so there are clearly some who would like to win even if it means cheating the system.

But I was not attempting to draw the line you're talking about, I very intentionally left that line out, both because "tanking" is a loaded term, and because it wasn't relevant to what I was trying to find out. Comments had been made about the values of the Kingsfans community, which suggested that we didn't care much about titles. THAT was what I was trying to find the answer to. I am sure that those who chose answer #1 have all sorts of different views on premeditated losing of games for draft position, and I will dispute anyone who tries to claim otherwise.

That was NOT what this poll was about.

 

[Jerryaki]

Comments had been made about the values of the Kingsfans community, which suggested that we didn't care much about titles.

 

[uolj]

And I object to this. In fact, I'm inclined to call it deceitful. It's misleading to suggest that stinking is the same as tanking, when it clearly isn't. If you have a group of kids go out there and give it their all every night, and they get throttled to the tune of 32-50, but you can clearly see improvement, that ain't tanking.

Yes it is. In the context of the discussions on this site over the last year or two it definitely is. "Tanking" means purposefully loading up on young players with the knowledge that they will play hard but probably lose a lot.

Tanking is not playing kids and losing. And tanking is not trading your "best" players to give the kids more time. Tanking is having more talented players on your roster and intentionally not playing them, or having your players go out and intentionally sandbag it on the court in order to lose more games. THAT'S tanking. Trading a talented player for picks and expirings is not tanking, it's the first phase of rebuilding.

Those are other definitions of tanking, but nobody here wants that, so they are irrelevant to the discussion. There only real relevance is the confusion caused by this more common use of the term rather than the definition above that is what is being talked about here.

EDIT - I'm sick of people either not understanding the concept, or intentionally misconstruing the concept to create a straw man they can knock down, and/or incite a reaction from other people: NOBODY advocates tanking. Tanking is cheating the game. But it's time that people stop propping up an incorrect definition of tanking, and saying that it's wrong. If you don't want to rebuild, if you don't want to start over with a youth movement, then say that. But don't call it tanking, because that's not what it is.

Then give it another name, please. I call it "tanking" with the quotes to indicate that it is the first definition above and not the second. Referring to it as tanking is a nice, quick, easy reference that most people understand. Feel free to come up with a better name, but until then, we'll just have to use the one we've got and the one that is generally accepted around here.

 

[Jerryaki]

Then give it another name, please.

LOL, i thought he did: rebuilding.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I really thought you were talking about the Mavs and their recent Kidd trade. I must have confused you with someone else ...

And you know that I have to give you hell about the Super Bowl. I can't help it.

But I did agree with you, so that should count for something.

Fair enough. I actually don't hate the Mavs like most here, I did some work with American Airlines Center in the past and though they were tough to work with at times we had a lot of friendly Kings/Mavs discussions to lighten up the mood(this was in 2001-2002). And the next year even though I had switched jobs some of them sent me an e-mail after the series saying they were sad they had to win under the given circumstances. But no, I'm not and never will be a Mavs fan. I don't even have room in my life to root for my local team right now

I have been a Boston sports fan since the mid-80s, starting with the Sox and Bruins in 86 and the Celts a few years later. I didn't really start following the Pats until 1992 when I moved to Boston for school.

 

[Glenn]

I am sure that those who chose answer #1 have all sorts of different views on premeditated losing of games for draft position, and I will dispute anyone who tries to claim otherwise.

I picked #1 and have no premeditated view on how to lose games.

 

[VF21]

I seem to recall that when MJ's Bulls came to town, Arco still sold out. So either a lot of fans would do exactly that, or we must be an incredibly gullible bunch of people.

Um, Arco sold out to see Michael Jordan. A one-time event. They didn't sell out the game before and they didn't sell out the game after. It wasn't anything near what I'm talking about - as I'm really sure you know.



This discussion is fun, though. My point remains - night in and night out how many people would TRULY pay to see a team that they're pretty sure is going to lose? It would depend entirely upon the team involved. If they're kids trying hard and giving it all they've got, I'd go. But if it's a bunch of expiring contracts with no future and space fillers waiting for the next couple of drafts, I wouldn't bother doing the PBP let alone make the trip to Sacramento.

 

[VF21]

Tanking is not playing kids and losing. And tanking is not trading your "best" players to give the kids more time. Tanking is having more talented players on your roster and intentionally not playing them, or having your players go out and intentionally sandbag it on the court in order to lose more games. THAT'S tanking. Trading a talented player for picks and expirings is not tanking, it's the first phase of rebuilding.

EXCELLENT summary IMHO. That's how I view tanking, as opposed to rebuilding or restructuring or planning for the future. TANKING, to me and I think a lot of others, has a negative connotation that taints the whole discussion.

 

[uolj]

EXCELLENT summary IMHO. That's how I view tanking, as opposed to rebuilding or restructuring or planning for the future. TANKING, to me and I think a lot of others, has a negative connotation that taints the whole discussion.

Yeah, the negative connotation sucks but until somebody comes up with a better term can we please just look past the word and understand the meaning behind it?

 

[fnordius]

That's how I view tanking, as opposed to rebuilding or restructuring or planning for the future. TANKING, to me and I think a lot of others, has a negative connotation that taints the whole discussion.

It's clear, just from posts in the last 2 hours, that not even the moderators here agree on the definition of "tanking," so we can be 100% sure that the rest of us don't agree about it either. Using that word would do nothing but to create confusion and misunderstandings. It wasn't what this poll was about, anyway.