Race to the Bottom thread

there is always a record of which games were within five points sometime in the last two minutes (referees two minute report) and you can Look back" any time you want

(site cannot handle the link)
 
eleventy said:
everyone is looking for a big solution (to tanking)... twice now, i have gone the other way, seeking a a small improvement... and no one has said "yea" or "nay",,,

i guess if it does not COMPLETELY SOLVE THE PROBLEM, then people would rather "have something to complain about."
Click to expand...
I feel like there's a difference between "complaining" and "advocating for a better solution".

It is my position that there are two problems to be simultaneously solved: 1) Eliminate tanking; 2) Get the best picks to the worst teams.

It is also my position that any metric that relies on team record or game score can and will be gamed (i.e. "Tanking") to some degree, and make it impossible to do (1). Further, any amount of randomness (e.g. lottery) reduces the effectiveness of (2), the more randomness, the less effective.

I'm not really one for rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. You can if you'd like, but I think we should try to find a solution outside of the current paradigm, because the current paradigm can't accomplish both goals.
eleventy said:
i suggested previously that silver should make a "minor adjustment tp the tiebreaking system:

if two or more teams finish with the same record (looking possible, this year), the tie breaker should "reward teams who 'compete'".

this could be done in a number of ways, like, the team with the most wins since the break gets the better pick.

what i like more is "the team with the most (full season)'close games' ( five points or less in the last two minutes) gets the better pick"

you could "keep track" by monitoring the ref's two minute reports

=====================================================================

i'm just looking at "how to discourage teams who want to tank (to get a higher pick)".

if the above were a small rule, would it discourage tanking (in a small way)?

you tank hoping to pick first, second or third... but if this rule meant that you might only get the fifth or sixth pick for your trouble, would tanking be worth it?
Click to expand...
I don't think this would do very much at all to discourage tanking.

For one, it does nothing to a team that does not end up tied at the end of the season. Many, if not most, tanking teams won't end up tied at the end of the season. Additionally, if you consider that winning a game automatically loses you the tiebreaker (because you're not tied anymore) teams would rather continue to tank as normal and either hope to win any tiebreaker, or continue to hope to out-tank the teams around them to avoid tiebreakers.

I would be surprised if a rule change like this changed tanking behavior at all.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
I feel like there's a difference between "complaining" and "advocating for a better solution".

It is my position that there are two problems to be simultaneously solved: 1) Eliminate tanking; 2) Get the best picks to the worst teams.

It is also my position that any metric that relies on team record or game score can and will be gamed (i.e. "Tanking") to some degree, and make it impossible to do (1). Further, any amount of randomness (e.g. lottery) reduces the effectiveness of (2), the more randomness, the less effective.

I'm not really one for rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. You can if you'd like, but I think we should try to find a solution outside of the current paradigm, because the current paradigm can't accomplish both goals.

I don't think this would do very much at all to discourage tanking.

For one, it does nothing to a team that does not end up tied at the end of the season. Many, if not most, tanking teams won't end up tied at the end of the season. Additionally, if you consider that winning a game automatically loses you the tiebreaker (because you're not tied anymore) teams would rather continue to tank as normal and either hope to win any tiebreaker, or continue to hope to out-tank the teams around them to avoid tiebreakers.

I would be surprised if a rule change like this changed tanking behavior at all.
Click to expand...

i'm not saying this would be a monumental change, but when you said this:

===============================================================

For one, it does nothing to a team that does not end up tied at the end of the season.

=================================================================

yes, but no team KNOWS if they will end up tied or not - but it would be one more thing to consider

let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good - let's do something (that doesn't hurt things or make them worse.)

you dpn't think this would help (much)

but would it hurt (is there a downside?)

the upside - less 30 point blowouts (by halftime) - more tight games

what if four teams finish 20-62?

you want to flip coins? when there is a simple way to favor teams who play tight games (but lose a lot).

this is one (small) way to penalize teams who sit their starters and get blown out repeatedly.

yes, maybe no teams finish tied. but the point is, "you have to consider the "possibility"

might this be one step to danny ainge saying, "it's not worth it."

what if utah loses out to the other three 20-62 teams and dallas/san antonio jump them all. you tanked all season to draft SIXTH?

how are you going to sell your owner on doing THAT again?

it just takes one four way tie to start a rethink. or maybe, "just the possibility" would "reduce" tanking.
 
eleventy said:
let us not let the perfect be the enemy of the good - let's do something (that doesn't hurt things or make them worse.)

you dpn't think this would help (much)

but would it hurt (is there a downside?)
Click to expand...

I don't think that every small, incremental change should be made just because it could be.

Let's imagine a proposal to give the top three teams in the lotto 139 combos each instead of 140, and to distribute the other three combos in some (unspecified for now) fashion. It wouldn't help much. Would it hurt? Is there a downside? Probably not. But seriously, should we really bother to do it? I say no, don't bother.

eleventy said:
what if utah loses out to the other three 20-62 teams and dallas/san antonio jump them all. you tanked all season to draft SIXTH?

how are you going to sell your owner on doing THAT again?

it just takes one four way tie to start a rethink. or maybe, "just the possibility" would "reduce" tanking.
Click to expand...
Let's imagine that - all other things considered - Utah and three other teams on a full tank are all fated to end up at 20-62 at the end of the year. Ainge has two options. Option 1 is to tank as usual and let a "competitiveness metric" determine the tiebreaker. Option 2 is to try to win the competitiveness tiebreaker. In doing so, there is a non-zero (and probably reasonably large) chance that the Jazz "accidentally" win one of the competitive games. Whoops! They just ended up at 21-61 and "lost" the tiebreaker (by not even getting into it)!

I can tell you which option Ainge is going to take, and it ain't #2.

My belief is that this proposal does nothing to reduce tanking. So I would not bother.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
I don't think that every small, incremental change should be made just because it could be.

Let's imagine a proposal to give the top three teams in the lotto 139 combos each instead of 140, and to distribute the other three combos in some (unspecified for now) fashion. It wouldn't help much. Would it hurt? Is there a downside? Probably not. But seriously, should we really bother to do it? I say no, don't bother.


Let's imagine that - all other things considered - Utah and three other teams on a full tank are all fated to end up at 20-62 at the end of the year. Ainge has two options. Option 1 is to tank as usual and let a "competitiveness metric" determine the tiebreaker. Option 2 is to try to win the competitiveness tiebreaker. In doing so, there is a non-zero (and probably reasonably large) chance that the Jazz "accidentally" win one of the competitive games. Whoops! They just ended up at 21-61 and "lost" the tiebreaker (by not even getting into it)!

I can tell you which option Ainge is going to take, and it ain't #2.

My belief is that this proposal does nothing to reduce tanking. So I would not bother.
Click to expand...

[ would ALWAYS do SOMETING (even if only slightly) positive to stop "tanking" - maybe something else the next offseason - death (of tanking) by a thousand (paper) cuts
 
Well that’s it. Nets crapped their diaper. We’re either 4th or 5th worst record. They actually have one more game against Raptors but they wont win.
 
But meanwhile the Jazz are up 28 on the Grizz. Of course, we're up 12 on a terrible-looking Warriors team so we'll probably hold steady in the tie.
 
jiimbob said:
Ever since we totally screwed them over getting Mitch for Billy stinking Owens
Click to expand...

Don Nelson agreed to that trade, so it's not like they were hoodwinked. Seems like Nelson just didn't want to pay Mitch and decided to build around Hardaway and Mullin instead. He also blew it with Chris Webber a couple years later. He's the guy Warriors fans should be burning in effigy if anything.
 
hrdboild said:
Don Nelson agreed to that trade, so it's not like they were hoodwinked. Seems like Nelson just didn't want to pay Mitch and decided to build around Hardaway and Mullin instead. He also blew it with Chris Webber a couple years later. He's the guy Warriors fans should be burning in effigy if anything.
Click to expand...
I like that, hoodwinked, I don’t remember ever hearing it before.. maybe more common in certain parts of the country.
Anyways yeah, Owens made a big stink about playing for the team that drafted him and Nelson felt that run TMC might get further with the highly touted Orangeman rookie. In the end two of our best all time players went first through GS. So in away it might not be screwed because I think over time got the better of them.
Lakers are a different story. We were screwed.
 
Last edited:
On the bright side, our final opponent (Blazers) are tied with the Clippers and will be motivated to win and ensure they get the 8 seed (they own the tiebreaker), while the Jazz' opponent (Lakers) already have the 4 seed locked up with a tiebreaker over Houston and may not be motivated to try to sneak into the 3 seed as either way they get a home series.
 
est.1999 said:
Does anyone know when they’ll have a coin flip between us and the jazz in the likelihood we tie record wise after tonight?
Click to expand...
I can only find that it happens soon after the end of the regular season. Sometime in April for sure, so good we don’t have to wait long for that news.
Utah of course wants to win the coin toss because if they don’t they could possibly lose their top 8 protected pick to OKC.
Not interested in OKC getting a top eight pick, but would like to see Utah get screwed for all their blatant losses.
 
Mark Stein said NBA teams are telling him that they believe they can land a difference maker all the way to 9 or 10 in this draft. We know it’s a good draft but 9 or 10 plus starter or better prospects is something.
 
iowamcnabb said:
Mark Stein said NBA teams are telling him that they believe they can land a difference maker all the way to 9 or 10 in this draft. We know it’s a good draft but 9 or 10 plus starter or better prospects is something.
Click to expand...

Maybe it’s best we get the 9 pick, that way it’s essentially picked for us and we can’t actively choose the bust, it’ll just happen through happenstance!
 
jiimbob said:
I can only find that it happens soon after the end of the regular season. Sometime in April for sure, so good we don’t have to wait long for that news.
Click to expand...
It won't happen until after the play-in games are finished so they can break all (possible) ties at once. I think they usually do it the Monday after the play-in games end, but since they end on Friday it might be earlier.
 
est.1999 said:
Does anyone know when they’ll have a coin flip between us and the jazz in the likelihood we tie record wise after tonight?
Click to expand...
jiimbob said:
I can only find that it happens soon after the end of the regular season. Sometime in April for sure, so good we don’t have to wait long for that news.
Utah of course wants to win the coin toss because if they don’t they could possibly lose their top 8 protected pick to OKC.
Not interested in OKC getting a top eight pick, but would like to see Utah get screwed for all their blatant losses.
Click to expand...
Capt. Factorial said:
It won't happen until after the play-in games are finished so they can break all (possible) ties at once. I think they usually do it the Monday after the play-in games end, but since they end on Friday it might be earlier.
Click to expand...
It was on 4/25 last year (the Friday after the 1st round kicked off), so one can only safely assume that this year's tiebreakers will be resolved by the end of next week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top