Is tanking "cheating"? Poll added

[John Galt]

oh God do you really want to delve into the minutia of betting combined odds at Craps? My quip was simply to point out that thate are bets at the craps table that were far safer than than the claimed 1:3 for nabbing a all star with a 1-5 pick.

But sure if you WOULD rather talk table odds than admit your analogy was faulty here is the breakdown.
Many/mo Casino's pay a 1 to 1 on a EITHER a pass or a don't pass bet This would be essential quick observation I used as evidence for the basis of a 30 second response.
Obviously the odds of a roll either pass or not pass is not quite 1:1 because of the possibility of rolling a push. the house house edge for a pass line bet is 1.41% whereas for a Don't bet it is only 1.36%. which explains why if you were to bet the one against the other you would eventually loose to the house.

The assumption is that the pass bet offer better odds. Remembering that you are not rolling a single dice with 11 numbers on it. You throw two dice with six on it, meaning that there are 8 ways to throw a 7 or 11, 3 ways to throw a 2 or 3, and 1 way to throw a 12.

So if you are a gambler who wants to minimize your odds of loosing to as close to 505/50 your best options generally are found at the black jack table or the pass line on the craps table, or betting red/black at roulette, but obviously the 1:1 pay out will always belie the built in advantage to the house (approx 1and1/9:1) . All of which are a far cry safer odds than the1:3 a team gets AFTER being selected through the lotto to get a top 5 pick.

almost... but roulette is much worse because of the green slots which gives a not inconsiderable 5% edge - not comparable to perfect strategy blackjack or craps.

the only true 50-50 bet in any casino is odds behind the pass/don't pass. Those are true 50-50 bets... and if you find a casino that will let you play 10 X odds, then you can whittle down any given pass/don't bet to pretty negligible .02% house edge (by betting pass and maxing odds behind).

if you can count cards you can beat blackjack. you can beat poker. you can beat sports books even with the 10% vig. anything else you play you are guaranteed to eventually flush your money if you play enough.

I quit gambling almost three years ago and am not at all obsessed by it any more.

 

[HndsmCelt]

almost... but roulette is much worse because of the green slots which gives a not inconsiderable 5% edge - not comparable to perfect strategy blackjack or craps.

the only true 50-50 bet in any casino is odds behind the pass/don't pass. Those are true 50-50 bets... and if you find a casino that will let you play 10 X odds, then you can whittle down any given pass/don't bet to pretty negligible .02% house edge (by betting pass and maxing odds behind).

if you can count cards you can beat blackjack. you can beat poker. you can beat sports books even with the 10% vig. anything else you play you are guaranteed to eventually flush your money if you play enough.

I quit gambling almost three years ago and am not at all obsessed by it any more.

LOL, lets heed Capt.'s warning and just all agree that the term crap shoot was a terrible analogy and move on... there are serious baketball issues to debate here

 

[sactowndog]

l

Actually the odds of finding an all star in in FA are 100%. Unlike a draft pick which is always Shrodinger's player until picked and played, there are known all stars in FA all the Kings have to is sign one. Now the DIFFICULTY in doing so may well debatable but probably not quantifiable. Which takes me to my larger complaint in the purely data driven analysis, it completely ignores the opportunity cost in making a decision to intentionally assemble and manage a team to loose games in the hope of beating the the odds and getting an all star. I don't really have the necessary time to devote to fully developing the argument but my position essentially is that the act of tanking has a profound effect on the team, and that with out a winning culture acquiring talent in the draft is insufficient to build a winning team. Perhaps as the spring break wanes and my desk clears I will invest the time and resources necessary to develop this position more completely.

I said the odds of the Kings signing an all star. Since they have never signed a multi year all star in free agency in their history and plenty have been on the market it is pretty quantifiable.

 

[HndsmCelt]

I said the odds of the Kings signing an all star. Since they have never signed a multi year all star in free agency in their history and plenty have been on the market it is pretty quantifiable.

Two time All Star Corn Row Brad Says Hi


Also 2 time All Star Zach Randolph will be sitting tonight but you ought to enjoy 8 time all star Vince Carter in this afternoons game.

 

[sactowndog]

Two time All Star Corn Row Brad Says Hi
View attachment 7502

Also 2 time All Star Zach Randolph will be sitting tonight but you ought to enjoy 8 time all star Vince Carter in this afternoons game.

LOL. Your example of us signing an impact player is a guy in his 40’s. Classic.

What’s next pointing out we signed Bill Russell as a coach.

 

[HndsmCelt]

LOL. Your example of us signing an impact player is a guy in his 40’s. Classic.

Hence why I led with the example of a top free agent in his prime who fit into the winning culture built by Adelman and Petrie. But again the succinct point is that you made a claim that was patently false. The LARGER point was how a single factor such as all star appearances is insufficent as criteria for evaluating success in drafting. or even in evaluating a free agent signing.

 

[sactowndog]

Hence why I led with the example of a top free agent in his prime who fit into the winning culture built by Adelman and Petrie. But again the succinct point is that you made a claim that was patently false. The LARGER point was how a single factor such as all star appearances is insufficent as criteria for evaluating success in drafting. or even in evaluating a free agent signing.

Sure that’s why the person I know who works in Basketball operations for a top team (not the Kings) said a 3 time all star was probably the best measure for an franchise impact player... but what would he know compared to a genius like you.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Sure that’s why the person I know who works in Basketball operations for a top team (not the Kings) said a 3 time all star was probably the best measure for an franchise impact player... but what would he know compared to a genius like you.

Look , I have no intention picking on you nor any other poster, but I will hold anyone accountable to support a claim that on its face seems incredible. I question the validity of the ability of any single metric being adequate to depict what makes for a "franchise impact player." But if I did accept that the only criteria necessary to operationalize it was all star appearances, I would suggest any team hoping to capture one of these guys via the draft to only include those players who went to the all star game with the team that drafted them into their data set before calculating the odds of improving THEIR team by tanking for a top 5 pick.

 

[sactowndog]

Look , I have no intention picking on you nor any other poster, but I will hold anyone accountable to support a claim that on its face seems incredible. I question the validity of the ability of any single metric being adequate to depict what makes for a "franchise impact player." But if I did accept that the only criteria necessary to operationalize it was all star appearances, I would suggest any team hoping to capture one of these guys via the draft to only include those players who went to the all star game with the team that drafted them into their data set before calculating the odds of improving THEIR team by tanking for a top 5 pick.

No one said it was the only metric. Others have posted win shares which show essentially the same dynamic. Just because it doesn’t fit your world view you choose to ignore the data.

And while you are correct a franchise player can leave a team, the NBA has structured contracts to insure players remain. The contract structure, according to Cuban, is a driving factor why teams tank.

 

[VF21]

LOL. Your example of us signing an impact player is a guy in his 40’s. Classic.

What’s next pointing out we signed Bill Russell as a coach.

You're the one that made the mistake when you ill-advisedly used the word "never". Celt merely called you on it.

Well played, Celt. Well played.

 

[VF21]

Sure that’s why the person I know who works in Basketball operations for a top team (not the Kings) said a 3 time all star was probably the best measure for an franchise impact player... but what would he know compared to a genius like you.

MOD VOICE: You can argue your point without the snark/sarcasm.

 

[HndsmCelt]

No one said it was the only metric. Others have posted win shares which show essentially the same dynamic. Just because it doesn’t fit your world view you choose to ignore the data.

And while you are correct a franchise player can leave a team, the NBA has structured contracts to insure players remain. The contract structure, according to Cuban, is a driving factor why teams tank.

So then you're content with a methodology that fails to eliminate as successful pics those players that are successful after leaving the team that picked them?

 

[sactowndog]

So then you're content with a methodology that fails to eliminate as successful pics those players that are successful after leaving the team that picked them?

Yes because if you can’t get a player (who will become a 3 time all star versus was 10 years ago) of that caliber on your team it doesn’t matter if you lose them.

 

[VF21]

And another thread bites the dust...

 

[Sac.1989]

shouldnt we have added a poll to this to see where the board sits on the actual question being asked ?

can we ?

 

[sactowndog]

shouldnt we have added a poll to this to see where the board sits on the actual question being asked ?

can we ?

Sure but I think you should have 3 answers:
1) yes it’s cheating and the Kings shouldn’t do it
2) No it’s not cheating but it hurts fan interest
3) No it’s not cheating, and it’s niave not to play the system like it’s been played since the 80’s

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

shouldnt we have added a poll to this to see where the board sits on the actual question being asked ?

can we ?

Sure but I think you should have 3 answers:
1) yes it’s cheating and the Kings shouldn’t do it
2) No it’s not cheating but it hurts fan interest
3) No it’s not cheating, and it’s niave not to play the system like it’s been played since the 80’s

I'm honestly still kicking this around, because adding a poll to a thread that's already been created is a pain in the ass. If I were to go ahead and do it, I'd add a fourth poll option to your three:

1) No, it’s not cheating, but it hurts fan interest.
2) No, it’s not cheating, and it’s naive not to play the system like it’s been played since the 80’s.
3) Yes, it’s cheating, and the Kings shouldn't do it.
4) Yes, it's cheating, but I don't care; if you're not cheating, you're not trying, baby!

 

[Kingster]

The current system that incentivizes tanking is corroding the spirit of the game by incentivizing losing. Losing should not be incentivized. Winning should be incentivized. I can't imagine anybody really feels good about taking measures to lose rather than to win, but the current system incentivizes short-term losing for the purpose of obtaining long term winning. You know it's a bad system when the non-tankers are the "suckers" and the real tankers are the "smart guys."

 

[chief bromden]

Hence why I led with the example of a top free agent in his prime who fit into the winning culture built by Adelman and Petrie. But again the succinct point is that you made a claim that was patently false. The LARGER point was how a single factor such as all star appearances is insufficent as criteria for evaluating success in drafting. or even in evaluating a free agent signing.

We traded for Brad in a sign-and-trade. Is that considered a free agent signing?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Technically, probably not, but functionally, yeah. S&T's are usually done, either to give the player an extra year/more money on the deal, or to throw a bone to the trading team, so that they don't walk away empty-handed.

 

[chief bromden]

Technically, probably not, but functionally, yeah. S&T's are usually done, either to give the player an extra year/more money on the deal, or to throw a bone to the trading team, so that they don't walk away empty-handed.

Well if that's the case, then that was a great signing by the Kings. Bobby Jackson was another good one. Third best might be Sarunas...

 

[ESP47]

The current system that incentivizes tanking is corroding the spirit of the game by incentivizing losing. Losing should not be incentivized. Winning should be incentivized. I can't imagine anybody really feels good about taking measures to lose rather than to win, but the current system incentivizes short-term losing for the purpose of obtaining long term winning. You know it's a bad system when the non-tankers are the "suckers" and the real tankers are the "smart guys."

It's a system that promotes fairness but it's more difficult for the NBA because there are so very few "good" players that come out of each draft. I don't know how you could do it any better because at some point some team is going to be legitimately bad and get screwed from year to year by teams that are much better than them but have better luck with whatever system the NBA might incorporate.

The MLB and NFL have many many rounds with a ton of good players that come out of them. The 30th pick in the NFL draft is essentially equivalent to the 5th pick in the NBA. Teams don't really tank as hard in the NFL and the only reason they ever do is if a hopeful star QB is lined up to be drafted that year. Otherwise it's just not worth the trouble.

 

[LPKingsFan]

We traded for Brad in a sign-and-trade. Is that considered a free agent signing?

I've maintained for quite some time that, in terms of debating the Kings' ability to attract top free agent talent, the Brad Miller acquisition absolutely counts. Yes, the Kings lost Hedo and Pollard in the process, but Miller was an all-star and considered the top free agent center on the market, and he chose to join the Kings over other contenders such as the Spurs, who settled for Rasho Nesterovic.

 

[Kingster]

It's a system that promotes fairness but it's more difficult for the NBA because there are so very few "good" players that come out of each draft. I don't know how you could do it any better because at some point some team is going to be legitimately bad and get screwed from year to year by teams that are much better than them but have better luck with whatever system the NBA might incorporate.

The MLB and NFL have many many rounds with a ton of good players that come out of them. The 30th pick in the NFL draft is essentially equivalent to the 5th pick in the NBA. Teams don't really tank as hard in the NFL and the only reason they ever do is if a hopeful star QB is lined up to be drafted that year. Otherwise it's just not worth the trouble.

I still like the idea of having a moving average system over a number of years. I'd do it over four years. Then you just don't have the incentive to lose like you would over one year. It's not a perfect system, but better than what we currently have.

 

[ESP47]

I still like the idea of having a moving average system over a number of years. I'd do it over four years. Then you just don't have the incentive to lose like you would over one year. It's not a perfect system, but better than what we currently have.

That's not a bad idea.

 

[HndsmCelt]

We traded for Brad in a sign-and-trade. Is that considered a free agent signing?

Yup. Slim got the gist of it right. Brad was a FA and agreed to come to Sac. I dont remember if he was restricted or not but if memory serves right we had to dump salary to make room for him so we sent out Pollard and Hedo. For the purposes of discussion all that really mattered was that Brad was a FA who signed to come to the Kings.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I still like the idea of having a moving average system over a number of years. I'd do it over four years. Then you just don't have the incentive to lose like you would over one year. It's not a perfect system, but better than what we currently have.

They've already adopted a system like that in the WNBA. But, in the W, it's only two years, so far.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

If we took 3 years of W/L for the teams currently out of the playoffs and the last 4 teams in, what would the tank standings look like? Someone with more time on their hands than me?

 

[hrdboild]

Yup. Slim got the gist of it right. Brad was a FA and agreed to come to Sac. I dont remember if he was restricted or not but if memory serves right we had to dump salary to make room for him so we sent out Pollard and Hedo. For the purposes of discussion all that really mattered was that Brad was a FA who signed to come to the Kings.

You two (you and sactowndog) are just arguing technicalities at this point (which... if we continue in this vein, Brad was also only a 1 x All Star when he signed here -- his second All-Star nod came as a member of the Kings). Regardless, Brad Miller is the biggest FA acquisition in Sacramento history since he was an All Star the year before and still in his prime but I'm not sure using him as an example is a fair counter-argument to the tanking strategy. He was joining a team that already had two All-Stars and finished with the second best record in the league the year before. That a small-market team can add an All-Star in free agency once they've already established themselves as a contender isn't in dispute. Can a small-market team build a contender that way without using the lottery? I think it would be harder to come up with examples of that happening.

In our case, Chris Webber is the engine that made that team run and he was a 1st overall pick that we got by trading a former 5th overall pick that we got by trading a 3rd overall pick. If you trace that team back to it's inception point, it still involves winning a top 3 pick in the lottery. I don't think Peja, JWill/Bibby, and Vlade were going to propel us to the top of the Western Conference without Chris.

 

[Sac.1989]

Sure but I think you should have 3 answers:
1) yes it’s cheating and the Kings shouldn’t do it
2) No it’s not cheating but it hurts fan interest
3) No it’s not cheating, and it’s niave not to play the system like it’s been played since the 80’s

agreed