sactowndog
Hall of Famer
Because it is the incorrect way of looking at it.
Race to the Bottom thread
- Thread starter iowamcnabb
- Start date
What should the team have done or do now thats within the rules?
Joshyjosh31
Starter
Cut westbrick
If Westbrook is as terrible as you say wouldn’t he help the tank? I’m confused.
sactowndog
Hall of Famer
The same thing Indiana and Utah have done. Ainge is orders of magnitude smarter than the Kings collective org.
Joshyjosh31
Starter
You were ok with him blocking carters minutes and development? Probably gonna justify when Perry ships him for trash next year like the ellis trade was justified
We don’t even know if the league is going to come down hard on those teams yet.
You want to be a fan of a team that tanks so flagrantly that it gets fined? And not only that, gets fined by the biggest enforce-nothing commissioner you can imagine.
Telemachus
Starter
Really? Utah has been actively tanking for 4 years. They have wasted half of Markkanen's prime trying to lose games.
You state Westbrook is horrible, say you want the Kings to lose then get mad when they play Westbrook?
sactowndog
Hall of Famer
Do I want to be a fan of a team that plays the game smart enough to develop a Championship contender vs one whose ceiling is a first round exit…….. hmmmm. Yes
sactowndog
Hall of Famer
You want to make a 100 bet that Utah reaches a 2nd round playoff before we do?
Telemachus
Starter
They should. They started their rebuild 4 years ago.
Tetsujin
The Game Thread Dude
The Jazz rebuild has gone on so long that they’re almost done getting picks from the Mitchell/Gobert trades
Doug's career doesn't hinge on whether or not he is tanking. The coach doesn't just take it upon himself to tank. If a team is tanking, it's because the owner, GM and coach are all on board that it's the best thing for the franchise. No team is going to look at Doug and not want to hire him because he did what the franchise wanted to do and played the young guys more minutes. They aren't going to hire him because he's just not a good coach in general. You think the Kings or some other team are going to be interested in Doug because DDR went off for 40pts against a Jazz team led by Cody Williams? These wins aren't saving his job. What could save his job would be the young players developing, looking promising, yet still losing because they aren't seasoned enough to beat legit teams on a regular basis. That would make him look good. Merely letting DDR and Westbrook do their thing is not good coaching. Anyone can do that.
Max's career isn't hinging on anything either. Every year plenty of teams tank to get a good pick and their young guys don't flame out because they got to play more minutes instead of riding the bench for 35yo+ players that are trying to thump G League lineups at the end of the year when the team has been a bottom dweller all year.
We've already talked about the lottery odds so there's no need to rehashing that argument. If you think there's no real difference in finishing last or 4th to last, then don't complain when the Kings fall out of the top 5 because there is a zero percent chance of that happening if they finished last.
Telemachus
Starter
I would point out that our GM has said publicly that he doesn't believe in tanking.
Joshyjosh31
Starter
a
It’s called losing with your youth why are you acting like you don’t know this we should’ve brought in Cousins and sat Max too huh smh
That’s how OKC coach survived the rebuild that and not playing an over the hill pg over SGA
It’s called losing with your youth why are you acting like you don’t know this we should’ve brought in Cousins and sat Max too huh smh
That’s how OKC coach survived the rebuild that and not playing an over the hill pg over SGA
Joshyjosh31
Starter
Well the last GM to flat say yes we’re tanking was thrown out the league Perry would be committing career suicide if he said anything else
Just throwing Carter out there for 30 minutes doesn’t magically make him better. Real development happens through skill work with work on shooting, ballhandling, decision-making and it happens mostly outside of games.
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
No self-respecting competitor does, or should.
When it comes to fans, it’s hard not to notice that the vast majority head over heels in favor of tanking are the ones that aren’t actively spending much money on the team (if any) while it’s happening.
sactowndog
Hall of Famer
Baloney. Many of us are/were season ticket holders who are tired of wasting our money on incompetence.
Insomniacal Fan
Starter
All these options are a lot more reasonable than early threats to eliminate the lottery all-together.
1 Is to just flatten the lottery odds. Which will have the side effect of bad teams staying bad for longer. Will occasionally randomly help middling play-in teams though, which I guess could be nice.
2. Is by far my favorite option. Takes away the sting of bad teams like the Kings being "competitive" in the late season, discourages teams from taking a dip into the lottery when convenient (Pacers) I only wish it were a 3 year average.
3. Wut? How would this discourage tanking?
Joshyjosh31
Starter
Cognitive dissonance is strong in him.
If you can’t figure out why we should play our lottery pick over Westbrook that’s your problem
ShastaKingsFan
Hall of Famer
He also stated that there is "a silver lining" with the losses piling up this season
Sources: NBA presents 3 comprehensive anti-tanking proposals
The NBA presented three comprehensive anti-tanking concepts to its board of governors Wednesday as part of this week's meetings in New York, with modifications expected to each before a formal vote in May, sources told ESPN's Shams Charania.
Typical hamfisted thinking by the NBA, taking a system that isn't addressing the problem correctly and trying to put a bandage on it.
They just can't recognize that no matter how you tweak it, a lottery can't accomplish BOTH goals of (1) eliminating tanking and (2) directing top picks towards the worst teams. At best, it turns the dial between the two. These options move the dial towards eliminating tanking, but at the cost of allowing some bad teams to stay bad. I suppose the NBA is trying to put playoff teams into the lottery to encourage teams to shoot for the playoffs, but that just makes things worse for the bad teams.
The draw-all-18 proposition is almost going back to the Frozen Envelope era. Interestingly, I don't think the NBA can consider using the current 14-ball combo system to do this sort of a lottery. The problem is that the current system is a with-replacement drawing, and if you want to draw all 18 slots, it will take a long time. A quick simulation indicates that it would take about 100 drawings to complete if the odds for teams 11-18 are even at 2%, but if they vary between say 4.5% and 0.5%, then it would take about 250 drawings to complete. With four balls per drawing you'd have to pull 1000 balls (with 250 resets) before the lottery was complete! This means you'd really have to do this without replacement. You could have a 100-ball machine, and pull out the balls of each winning team after they are picked, but that would still be tedious and would not allow for fine-tuning the odds of the lower-tier teams, every team's odds would have to be in multiples of 1%. Of course, the NBA could just do a computer simulation instead of balls, and I'm sure EVERYBODY WOULD COMPLETELY TRUST THAT.
Yeah, the only silver lining here is Silver lining the pockets of the top teams in the league by making a permanent underclass of bad teams for them to beat up on.
Insomniacal Fan
Starter
Here's the quote from Silver from the espn.com article
I think Silver's position is the paradigm isn't wrong, but the balance is off. Maybe I'm reading into that, because that's basically my position (losing to get a top 5 pick is just obviously the right thing to do if you're trying to build a team worth paying attention to.)
What do you think about option 2? Taking the record from the last two years, and putting a floor on the level of crappiness that will be rewarded?
(I think it would dissuade teams from tanking, and encourage teams to commit to long term rebuilding)
Can anybody explain what the 5x5 option is supposed to do?
Just addressing this part for the moment, may get back to the rest later.
What he seems not to recognize is that the current method of using a win-loss record metric (in any fashion, over any period of time) cannot distinguish between the two. Rebuilding teams lose games. Tanking teams lose games. And any time there is a metric that can be manipulated to accumulate future capital (in this case draft capital) then there is incentive to manipulate it.
The metric has got to go.
If he's actually serious about distinguishing between tanking teams and rebuilding teams and treating them differently (so that rebuilding is done "the right way") then the win/loss metric (and lotto) system has to be scrapped, and the NBA has to start from first principles and build a system with incentives that are targeted to result in the outcome they want.
All these lotto manipulations are nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig.
Silver is right that it's hard to distinguish the tank from the rebuild. But he also says "rebuild with integrity" which presumably means he wants to reward the one and punish the other.
What he seems not to recognize is that the current method of using a win-loss record metric (in any fashion, over any period of time) cannot distinguish between the two. Rebuilding teams lose games. Tanking teams lose games. And any time there is a metric that can be manipulated to accumulate future capital (in this case draft capital) then there is incentive to manipulate it.
The metric has got to go.
If he's actually serious about distinguishing between tanking teams and rebuilding teams and treating them differently (so that rebuilding is done "the right way") then the win/loss metric (and lotto) system has to be scrapped, and the NBA has to start from first principles and build a system with incentives that are targeted to result in the outcome they want.
All these lotto manipulations are nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig.