Ok I'll bite. Have you considered that rationality in the case of supporting a sports team is maximization of utility? You have defined your utility function as a function of EXPECTED wins in the coming seasons where that function in itself is maximized by odds of a high draft pick. You assume that maximizing success in the future is a linear and univariate function of the 2018-2019 draft odds. Frankly, I don't think there's any clear statistical way (since you're so hard up on "facts") of proving that a top 3 pick and a cast of players that spent half a season not trying their best to win games is significantly better than a top 8 pick and a cast of players that have learnt to play hard every night and play for each other, regardless of outcome. This only explains the "future success" element, and doesn't account for the utility that many fans have in rooting for their team to win, and from seeing guys play hard etc, not to mention individual differences in preference discounting across time periods. This is even more so the case given that you'd expect most of our current players to be around going forward, and it's not a case where we are just fielding half a team of D-leaguers while waiting for Harry Giles to recover. That provides reason for investment in current success as well. Just because someone would rather have 1 marshmallow today than 2 next week doesn't make him any less rational than you, from a utility point of view.
Is tanking "cheating"? Poll added
- Thread starter JCTNKINGFAN
- Start date
Ok I'll bite. Have you considered that rationality in the case of supporting a sports team is maximization of utility? You have defined your utility function as a function of EXPECTED wins in the coming seasons where that function in itself is maximized by odds of a high draft pick. You assume that maximizing success in the future is a linear and univariate function of the 2018-2019 draft odds. Frankly, I don't think there's any clear statistical way (since you're so hard up on "facts") of proving that a top 3 pick and a cast of players that spent half a season not trying their best to win games is significantly better than a top 8 pick and a cast of players that have learnt to play hard every night and play for each other, regardless of outcome. This only explains the "future success" element, and doesn't account for the utility that many fans have in rooting for their team to win, and from seeing guys play hard etc, not to mention individual differences in preference discounting across time periods. This is even more so the case given that you'd expect most of our current players to be around going forward, and it's not a case where we are just fielding half a team of D-leaguers while waiting for Harry Giles to recover. That provides reason for investment in current success as well. Just because someone would rather have 1 marshmallow today than 2 next week doesn't make him any less rational than you, from a utility point of view.
whozit
Starter
You want people to remain rational and objective. But are arguing how something is argued because it 'grinds your gears.' What is rational or objective about that? You can't have it both ways.
whozit
Starter
Have the Kings been less than honorable in fielding a competitive team in the past? Yes.
End of last year and this year? It would be in the eye of the beholder. It could be argued both ways. Learning as VF21 put it or mildly tanking? I hope it's learning but I don't know their hearts. Last year it was to protect the pick, tanking.
burekijogurt
Starter
whozit
Starter
You bring up a valid point. Did the team cheat last year? Did they make sure they didn't lose the pick? Yes.
Could this be a correct analogy? Is stealing to feed a starving baby different than stealing to get your next fix? Cheating to keep from losing an asset or cheating to improve an asset? I hadn't given it much thought last year.
This is at least well argumented, alltough I still disagree with you. As I've said multiple times everyone has a right to their opinion. The occasions I've called someones argument irrational are the ones where someone tries to argue that draft position doesnt matter if the goal is to get a franchise player. You are not automatically irrational if you dont want to tank. You are irrational when you argue against very clear statistics just because they dont fully support your idea of what direction to move with the franchise. Your arguments werent irrational,although there were couple of misunderstandings by you on my position. For example "a cast of players that spent half a season not trying their best to win games". I think that is a scenario no one is advocating for. For me personally I always want to see the team play hard and to me its crucial that its strongly emphasized during a rebuild. To me its just about playing vets or not and how to accumulate assets. And I think that as long as playing hard is emphasized, losing for couple of seasons wont have an impact (at least heavy) in the future.
"This is even more so the case given that you'd expect most of our current players to be around going forward, and it's not a case where we are just fielding half a team of D-leaguers while waiting for Harry Giles to recover. "
I'm not sure you fully understand my position in rebuilding. The things I wouldve done differently is that I wouldnt have signed any of the vets that we did and just keep Kosta, Temple and probably a guy like Tolliver as mentors. For the rest of the roster spots try to find diamonds in the ruff. Not half a roster of dleaguers.
If you are anti tanking and this is your thought process behind it, its not irrational. You admit the fact that drafting top 3 more likely will get you a better player than drafting 8th. And if to you the utily of being able to root for a win every night factors in more than maximizing the talent to build around, its fine by me. We can disagree on these things, be fans of the team and still both be rational about it even though Ive been told that its impossible.
What? I believe that even if some things "grind my gears" I can still be objective and rational in a conversation.
Last edited:
I personally don't think that tanking is cheating.
I just think that if you are the type that considers it cheating, then you have to call your very own Kings a cheating franchise. People can justify it however they want but in the end, the best possible lineups haven't been used the most by the Kings post all star break the last two years because they've tanked.
We can justify it however we want but so can every other franchise out there. The Grizzlies know what they have in Gasol, so why not rest Gasol during a wasted year and bring up Joe Scrub from the G League and see if he has anything to show? The same excuses work for every team in the lottery. Not just for our very own Kings.
If people are calling for the tankers to be punished, they shouldn't be too surprised if the Kings get punished as well. This is the main reason why I don't think there will be any punishments handed out at all because it starts a dangerous precedent for the league. How can a team ever develop a young player correctly if they are basically being forced into playing a veteran player ahead of them for fear of punishment? One might say that playing one young player isn't tanking but playing a few of them is. Ok, so does the league now only allow 1 or 2 players to be developed at a time? If you have 3 young guys out there playing more minutes than the veterans, are you now considered a tanker and up for punishment? It's impossible to punish tankers in this current system without going down a pretty dark road that will be scrutinized to eternity by everybody.
whozit
Starter
I think it comes down to intent. And I don't know their hearts. There has "always" been those that "gamed" the system but those seemed to be confined to the bottom few. This year it looks like it's around a quarter or more of the league is in on it and considering more than half the league makes the playoffs that is troubling. Is this year an anomaly or this going be the going standard? This widespread, this early can't be good for either the league or the paying customers.
Folsomkingsfan
Starter
I agree that tanking will most likely never be fully abolished and punishments will most likely never become standardized, but I wish there was a way it could be. Between bad teams resting their good players at the end of the year and good teams resting their good players throughout the year, Only like half of the games are worth going to.
King-Da-Yah
Starter
What you fail to factor in are the innumerable factors that contribute to a franchises' or a player's greatness. Does landing in the top 5 net you a better draft prospect and thus a better shot at turning your franchise around? Clearly, it can make a big difference. Boogie was the 5th pick in the draft. D-Fox was the 5th pick in the draft.
Would you agree that they were the best selections we could have made on draft day, especially considering that they were most definitely BPA at that given point in time? We needed a franchise big in 2010, and we selected a great one in Cousins. So many things led to our struggles in the years following that, some of which were definitely on him, but certainly not all.
If I could go back, I definitely would have taken Paul George with that 5th pick, who went 10th (!). George has been a perennial all-star and would not have come with some of the emotional (and officiating) headaches that Boogie came with. Hindsight is 20/20 with these things, obviously. I loved Big Cuz, but I definitely see a player who is easier to mesh/play with in George. Oh well.
As much as I love D-Fox, I think we all could have gotten on board with Donovan Mitchell with our 5th pick (he would go #1 if the draft had a "do-over"). Something that just does not translate well with facts, stats or draft position stats is that you simply can't tell the future. HUGE Fox fan here, but having watched Mitchell all year, I truly believe he will be a top 10 player in the foreseeable future.
You do not know that a Mitchell or a George is going to end up being the best player from a draft, simply because you do not know (and really cannot know) that player's desire for greatness. MJ, Kobe LeBron and their ilk did not become the players they were on physical talent alone. It was that extra desire for greatness that made them "once-in-a-generation" superstars. And a ton of work!
The long or the short of it, is that you have to check logic and rationale at the door when it comes to the draft, since for the most part it is a crap-shoot. Now, I am pro "get the best pick possible", but I am not pro "lose on purpose". As Go-Go-Gadget Gobert pointed out, there is a better way to get to the playoffs than asking your hungry, young players to purposefully lose.
tl/dr; logic and rationale do not have the best leg to stand on in NBA draft discussions. I am sure you will counter with something along the lines of "well I meant fans should be more rational as a whole, not just in tanking discussions". However this is a tanking thread, my friend.
Draft isnt crap shoot. The data avilable suggests that the odds of getting a franchise player top 3 are significantly higher than 7-9th. All those examples you listed are already included in those odds.
King-Da-Yah
Starter
How could we have possibly out tanked Memphis, PHX and Atlanta though? We have hungry players who want to grow and know how to win when the game is on the line. No amount of roster tinkering, short of using primarily g-league players would have achieved that. We don't pay exuberant sums of money to see that kind of product. And the commissioner is none-to-pleased that fan bases have to.
You are missing the overall point of my response to you. The point is everything is a crap shoot when you really think about it. Things are going to play out the way that they are going to play out. Players are going to transcend where they were drafted without fail. It is not as exact of a science as you are letting on.
And if they don't?
- "A mod" has a name. @-me next time.
- I didn't get mad; I'm still not mad. The only thing that you've posted that's even caused me to be slightly annoyed is your passive-aggressive "He/she" business.
- You haven't actually seen my point of view, because I haven't offered it. I've been arguing on behalf of abstracts and general concepts, this whole time; my point of view isn't pertinent to this conversation. You know how you can tell that I haven't offered my opinion? Because I haven't actually addressed the thread topic. I haven't said anything about tanking, or cheating, or draft position, or addressed anybody else's opinion about tanking or cheating or draft position. Nor have I betrayed my opinion by 'liking' anybody else's posts about the subject. And I don't intend to. The only personal opinion that I've offered is that, if an organization is going to rebuild/tank, then they should cut ticket prices for the duration of the rebuild/tank, because I think it's slimy to charge consumers full price for a ticket, when you're actively trying not to compete. And that doesn't reveal whether I'm pro-tank or anti-tank, or whether I think it's cheating or not.
- I haven't "flexed" on you. I haven't been posting from the "authority of a mod," or whatever. So I don't know what you think you're accomplishing with this whole continued conceit of characterizing my disagreement with you as "coming from a mod," unless you think that moderators shouldn't be allowed to contribute to the message boards they moderate at.
- "Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get." You go ahead and 'expect' whatever, but this message board is going to keep carrying on, whether you think the discourse is appropriately rational or not.
King-Da-Yah
Starter
Hard not to think of Game of Thrones here...HeHe. "A mod has no name" (The Faceless Men)
HndsmCelt
Hall of Famer
NO kidding. If you bet the pass/don't pass line your odds are 50/50
edwardyoung111
G-League
Yes, tanking is cheating.
Flopping is also cheating (and King Flop is our GM).
Fouling a guy when you think the ref isn't looking is also cheating.
Telling season ticket holders that you are going to sign DMC to a max contract as soon as legally allowed to (at season's end) TWO DAYS before the drop dead date for ticket renewals and then trading him after people have made their choice (to renew or not to renew) is also cheating.
However.
I think the Kings are only engaged in "situational tanking".
Last year, they clearly were engaged in full-on tanking.
That was obvious when coming out of the break, they won their first game (Denver) and then fielded a different starting lineup in eaqch of the next seven games (all losses).
There is no way to get the players to tank (maybe Z-Bo - if you offer him some weed - since this is his last stop).
But the Coach can easily tank - because he calls the strategy.
Two recent examples (of situational tanking):
home with OKC. 1 second left, tie game. Westbrook is the normal inbounder in the frontcourt. The most dangerous player on a frontcourt inbounds play IS the inbounder (see D. Fox, Nets game at end of regulation). But with 1 second left, the inbounder is the LEAST dangerous player, because there is not time for a return pass. Which is why Carmelo inbounded. Putting a defender on the inbounder is a low-reward/high risk strategy. IF you have an excellent long armed defender who you think might get a fingernail on the inbounds pass, starting the clock so no one gets off a shot, well, go for it. We don't have such a player, so the correct strategy is to NOT guard the inbounder, but to put one Westbrook defender below the screener and the extra defender above the screener. Either Joerger coached poorly or he tanked.
home with Lakers (second game). 28 seconds left, Lakers up three with the ball. Sure, you COULD (at the timeout) say, "D up guys for 24 seconds and we can tie it with a trey". Low percentage. Better to play the foul game. At that point, Randle was 0-5 at the free throw line. He never made even ONE. And the ball went to him right ion front of Joerger, three guys around him. When Joerger didn't SCREAM "FOUL HIM", I assumed he was playing the low percentage. The ball then goes to Isiah and Fox fouls him (on his own? with the coach's blessing?). Automatic two points. Bogi then comes up with a four point play, cutting it to one with 18 seconds left. Another timeout to set strategy. For some reason, Lakers don't advance ball. Ball goes in to tiny Isiah who is surrounded in the backcourt. At THIS point, you DON'T foul (unless/until he get ball over midcourt) because an 8 second violation is a pretty good bet. But they foul him immediately for two more guaranteed free throws. Bad coaching? Players freelancing? Or "situational tanking"?
Now, as to why the Kings are not tanking like last year.
Maybe someone has already made this observation somewhere, but I am unaware of that - but it seems logical.
Let's say that you are the Kings braintrust at the all-star break and you want to tank.
Easy peasy.
You simply announce that Papagiannis will be working with the coaching staff 24/7 over the break and for the last 27 games after the break, he will be the starting center (Willie at PF, where he would rather play anyway) and play 35 minutes a game (fouls permitting). You announce that you owe it to the franchise and the fans to do this, because he is a lottery pick who you have invested 7 million dollars in and you simply HAVE to make a decision on him - and the fact that you are out of the playoff hunt makes this important to do do now that the time is right.
N one could criticize that decision. You NEED to find out if he can be counted on before the next draft (the last one where you have a #1).
Of course, we would have lost almost every game and he would have been revealed as a non-factor, but my point is, "If they wanted to full-on tank, they had the perfect situation and just the man for the job".
Now, for a conspiracy theory:
It made little to no sense to just cut Papa at that point. 1) you never really GAVE him those minutes, so, you have not seen whether he might have worn down other centers over 35 minutes (per game) and been strong down the stretch of close games. 2) you still have to pay him the money. 3) There isn't anybody else who needs those minutes (Bruno at PF - willie at C???) 4) he has no leverage and I doubt that with this kind of non-factoring status that he could be a locker room cancer, even if he wanted to be.
I can't think of another lottery pick cut mid-season with a year left on his contract (that you STILL have to pay him for), saving no money and freeing up time for no one who needed those minutes to prove himself.
Can you?
I suggest that either he was developing bad, self-destructive habits and had to be cut loose for that reason or (get your tinfoil hats ready), he was having or was about to have a relationship with Vlade's infatuated adopted daughter.
Crazy enough for ya?
Flopping is also cheating (and King Flop is our GM).
Fouling a guy when you think the ref isn't looking is also cheating.
Telling season ticket holders that you are going to sign DMC to a max contract as soon as legally allowed to (at season's end) TWO DAYS before the drop dead date for ticket renewals and then trading him after people have made their choice (to renew or not to renew) is also cheating.
However.
I think the Kings are only engaged in "situational tanking".
Last year, they clearly were engaged in full-on tanking.
That was obvious when coming out of the break, they won their first game (Denver) and then fielded a different starting lineup in eaqch of the next seven games (all losses).
There is no way to get the players to tank (maybe Z-Bo - if you offer him some weed - since this is his last stop).
But the Coach can easily tank - because he calls the strategy.
Two recent examples (of situational tanking):
home with OKC. 1 second left, tie game. Westbrook is the normal inbounder in the frontcourt. The most dangerous player on a frontcourt inbounds play IS the inbounder (see D. Fox, Nets game at end of regulation). But with 1 second left, the inbounder is the LEAST dangerous player, because there is not time for a return pass. Which is why Carmelo inbounded. Putting a defender on the inbounder is a low-reward/high risk strategy. IF you have an excellent long armed defender who you think might get a fingernail on the inbounds pass, starting the clock so no one gets off a shot, well, go for it. We don't have such a player, so the correct strategy is to NOT guard the inbounder, but to put one Westbrook defender below the screener and the extra defender above the screener. Either Joerger coached poorly or he tanked.
home with Lakers (second game). 28 seconds left, Lakers up three with the ball. Sure, you COULD (at the timeout) say, "D up guys for 24 seconds and we can tie it with a trey". Low percentage. Better to play the foul game. At that point, Randle was 0-5 at the free throw line. He never made even ONE. And the ball went to him right ion front of Joerger, three guys around him. When Joerger didn't SCREAM "FOUL HIM", I assumed he was playing the low percentage. The ball then goes to Isiah and Fox fouls him (on his own? with the coach's blessing?). Automatic two points. Bogi then comes up with a four point play, cutting it to one with 18 seconds left. Another timeout to set strategy. For some reason, Lakers don't advance ball. Ball goes in to tiny Isiah who is surrounded in the backcourt. At THIS point, you DON'T foul (unless/until he get ball over midcourt) because an 8 second violation is a pretty good bet. But they foul him immediately for two more guaranteed free throws. Bad coaching? Players freelancing? Or "situational tanking"?
Now, as to why the Kings are not tanking like last year.
Maybe someone has already made this observation somewhere, but I am unaware of that - but it seems logical.
Let's say that you are the Kings braintrust at the all-star break and you want to tank.
Easy peasy.
You simply announce that Papagiannis will be working with the coaching staff 24/7 over the break and for the last 27 games after the break, he will be the starting center (Willie at PF, where he would rather play anyway) and play 35 minutes a game (fouls permitting). You announce that you owe it to the franchise and the fans to do this, because he is a lottery pick who you have invested 7 million dollars in and you simply HAVE to make a decision on him - and the fact that you are out of the playoff hunt makes this important to do do now that the time is right.
N one could criticize that decision. You NEED to find out if he can be counted on before the next draft (the last one where you have a #1).
Of course, we would have lost almost every game and he would have been revealed as a non-factor, but my point is, "If they wanted to full-on tank, they had the perfect situation and just the man for the job".
Now, for a conspiracy theory:
It made little to no sense to just cut Papa at that point. 1) you never really GAVE him those minutes, so, you have not seen whether he might have worn down other centers over 35 minutes (per game) and been strong down the stretch of close games. 2) you still have to pay him the money. 3) There isn't anybody else who needs those minutes (Bruno at PF - willie at C???) 4) he has no leverage and I doubt that with this kind of non-factoring status that he could be a locker room cancer, even if he wanted to be.
I can't think of another lottery pick cut mid-season with a year left on his contract (that you STILL have to pay him for), saving no money and freeing up time for no one who needed those minutes to prove himself.
Can you?
I suggest that either he was developing bad, self-destructive habits and had to be cut loose for that reason or (get your tinfoil hats ready), he was having or was about to have a relationship with Vlade's infatuated adopted daughter.
Crazy enough for ya?
Last edited:
King-Da-Yah
Starter
So we tried to lose the OKC game? I don't see it, sorry, I just don't. You are talking about the one where Westbrook hit his only 3 of the game with 1 second left right? I think it is a stretch to say that having someone cover the in-bounder equates to a situational tank.
edwardyoung111
G-League
It is the coach's decision how to play that last one second. I think that Joerger deliberately chose the lowest percentage tactic. It was a GREAT game - no one left feeling cheated. And we still inched closer to a higher pick. Same with the Laker game (I think it was the very next home game). Great game, no disappointment, since we are not in the hunt for anything. In fact, the greatest tanks would be ones where you simply pull the plug at just the key moment and the first 47 minutes are a fun time for all.
John Galt
Starter
bruh... Joerger deliberately chose the lowest percentage tactic???? long credibility rebuild ahead
LPKingsFan
All-Star
Well, we are plenty familiar with long rebuilds here at kingsfans.com
rosa u podne
Bench
IMO, good way to prevent ridiculous tanking is to exclude from lotery 3 worst teams. They woud have guaranteed 4-6 pick.
sactowndog
All-Star
Are you saying the pass line bet has no house edge?
whozit
Starter
Trouble is, at what point does it become to prevent a disadvantage? Is that not one of the things the Kings are getting ripped for? Should have been stopped years ago. At the very least when Philly openly flaunted "the process."
HndsmCelt
Hall of Famer
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.
sactowndog
All-Star
True but those odds are far higher then the odds of finding an all- star at 10 or the odds of the Kings signing an all star via free agency.
A metaphor is fine and good, but if y'all want to continue an actual discussion on craps odds, I think we should move it to the Lounge.
HndsmCelt
Hall of Famer
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.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
