To Tank or not to Tank???

[sactownfan]

Well just like last year im seriously disappointed again after the draft lottery.

heres some numbers...
this year
>5 games separated us from the 1st pick.
last year...
> 1 game separated us from the first pick.
> 2 games from the second pick and
> sure enough we LOST the tie breaker for the 8th and 9th pick.

SO THIS BRINGS ME BACK TO TANKING IF YOUR TEAM IS STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PACK....

this is my opinion... But I think that winning the lotto by moving into the top 3 spots is much more of a moral booster (for the players and fans) than playing your vets big min's late in the season trying to eek out meaningless games....that will in the end only hurt your future in the sense that your team sucks bad enough to miss the playoffs and personal wise your already looking at not being in the best spot to land a impact player that will help turn around your sorry team.

yes the draft and lotto are a gamble but it helps when you have a GM with the uncanny ability to find and draft great talent. and by tanking your basically allowing this GM better odds at better players the will in turn make your team better in the future!

Muss and Reggie blew it two straight years now. drive up the wins! mess with the young guys mins! win win win ! with nothing at stake other than losing out on talent!

We should have shut down Brad way before we did and started Hawes for alot more games. Douby and Williams should have played more! We should have called up all the best D-league players and tried to find a gem (yeah we were at the limit of active players who cares) L.Wright, Lue, A.Johnson should have never been given Kings uniforms.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Tanking is playing with the intent to lose. No team should tank. Ever.

Now, on the other hand, if you make the sort of roster moves where the players that are left on the team are unlikely to win in the short term no matter how hard they play, well... that's actually NOT tanking. And that's something I could live with.

 

[PurpleHaze]

Tanking is playing with the intent to lose. No team should tank. Ever.

Now, on the other hand, if you make the sort of roster moves where the players that are left on the team are unlikely to win in the short term no matter how hard they play, well... that's actually NOT tanking. And that's something I could live with.

I absolutely agree, as it's against every single instinct in an athletes make up to actually try to lose against any opponent anytime. To guard against "tanking" is why the current draft lottery system was put in place. Even if you went 0-82 in an NBA season you have no guarantees in the draft with various odds tied to those crazy bouncing balls.

Chicago had a tiny 1.7 % chance of getting the #1 pick and miraculously landed it! The Kings had a 0.7% chance yet ended up where the odds said they would - at #12. Better luck next year as obviously a lot of it is luck, pure and simple.

 

[sactownfan]

sorry let me clear it up....
yes no team should ever.... EVER.... lose on purpose as in the players don't try.

but my arguement is that we should have played the kids way more... starting way earlier in the season... also yes D-leaguers should have suited up before Athony Johnson, L. Wright.

 

[VF21]

I absolutely agree, as it's against every single instinct in an athletes make up to actually try to lose against any opponent anytime. To guard against "tanking" is why the current draft lottery system was put in place. Even if you went 0-82 in an NBA season you have no guarantees in the draft with various odds tied to those crazy bouncing balls.

Chicago had a tiny 1.7 % chance of getting the #1 pick and miraculously landed it! The Kings had a 0.7% chance yet ended up where the odds said they would - at #12. Better luck next year as obviously a lot of it is luck, pure and simple.

Well said.

 

[piksi]

this topic always shows up when it is too late. After the season is over - too late to change anything. Tanking sucks big time but rebuilding can be fun. We really didn't do either as usual. Sometimes - You have to earn luck and we don't deserve it right now. We need to help ourselves because that is the only thing that we can control.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

also yes D-leaguers should have suited up before Athony Johnson, L. Wright.

Lorenzen Wright logged a total of 12 minutes and 52 seconds in a Kings uniform this year. I'm sure that 12 minutes and 52 seconds would have been MUCH better spent on a D-leaguer.

Seriously. You just complained that Lorenzen Wright got too many minutes.

 

[Aenadin]

looking at the past two seasons... the two coaches were newly hired hence they wanted to impress their boss by winning by competing...

its like going to work for the first time and you are willing to do anything to move up...

i mean theus cant just call all his guys in the locker room and say "what do you guys say.... we tank this game so we get another lottery pick?" players dont like to lose.. they have their pride too.. and Theus doesnt want to instill a losing mentality... even muss had his banners up if recall saying how they should play sadly he messed it up badly

so basically what im saying is you cant expect ANY coach to tank it would hurt their career too and player coach relationship and the fanbase not unless management tells the coach to start the young guys and "tank" then use the coach as a scape goat... management telling the coach to start the young guys is like an insult to them saying they cant do the job right scarring the relationship too....

damn a coaches life is hard

dont care what position we get int he lottery as long as we keep trying to win each game

 

[venom_7]

Chicago had a tiny 1.7 % chance of getting the #1 pick and miraculously landed it!

Miraculously isn't the word I would use here.

 

[Spike]

Miraculously isn't the word I would use here.

Fortuitous?

 

[Bricklayer]

Chicago had a tiny 1.7 % chance of getting the #1 pick and miraculously landed it! The Kings had a 0.7% chance yet ended up where the odds said they would - at #12. Better luck next year as obviously a lot of it is luck, pure and simple.

This is the same sort of logic that causes people to pump hundreds of dollars of coins into a slot machine because the guy next to them happened to win a jackpot once.

This thread of course should have been titled "To Plan Ahead and Attempt to Maximize One's Chances At Success, Or to Be Idiots (That is The Question)". The bounties of NOT "tanking" have sure been special to our franchise -- losing seasons, half empty arenas, half empty board for that matter, coaching carousels...man, am loving it. Sure am glad we aren't planning ahead! That would suck!

 

[Big Cuz 15]

heat executed it perfectly. got a top 2 pick. shawn marion's huge expiring will come off the books after this season. they'll be back in the swing of things in a season or two. thats how rebuilding gets done.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

This thread of course should have been titled "To Plan Ahead and Attempt to Maximize One's Chances At Success, Or to Be Idiots (That is The Question)".

This is often misunderstood. There are entirely too many people here and elsewhere who are wrong in thinking that this = tanking. This strategy is NOT tanking. As long as the coach puts the best players that he has at his disposal on the court and coaches to win, it's not tanking. As long as the players on the court play to win, it's not tanking.

It's on the owners and the GM to put the team in the best position for the future, not the coach. It's not Theus' job to not play Artest and Miller and Bibby to make sure we don't win, it's Petrie's job to make sure that Artest and Miller and Bibby aren't on the team to be played to begin with. And if Kevin Martin and four other guys aren't enough to win, even playing as hard as they can... oh well.

 

[Bricklayer]

This is often misunderstood. There are entirely too many people here and elsewhere who are wrong in thinking that this = tanking. This strategy is NOT tanking. As long as the coach puts the best players that he has at his disposal on the court and coaches to win, it's not tanking. As long as the players on the court play to win, it's not tanking.

It's on the owners and the GM to put the team in the best position for the future, not the coach. It's not Theus' job to not play Artest and Miller and Bibby to make sure we don't win, it's Petrie's job to make sure that Artest and Miller and Bibby aren't on the team to be played to begin with. And if Kevin Martin and four other guys aren't enough to win, even playing as hard as they can... oh well.

I think even you are being too stingy (perhaps inadvertently) -- it is absolutely a valid strategy for a coach to play younger, lesser (currently) players over older, better (currently) vets. Its a core rebuilding strategy, paying divdends across the board -- younger guys develop + gain experience, you get a chance to evaluate them in a real game situation, you lose games and get better draft picks -- its all good, and all valid. If your team is not good enough today, then the only way it ever will get good enough one day is if those young guys develop.

Now playing older worse vets (i.e. scrubs) over other, better vets...that would be when it becomes tanking. No excuse for that.

 

[keflanag]

Well just like last year im seriously disappointed again after the draft lottery.

heres some numbers...
this year
>5 games separated us from the 1st pick.
last year...
> 1 game separated us from the first pick.
> 2 games from the second pick and
> sure enough we LOST the tie breaker for the 8th and 9th pick.

SO THIS BRINGS ME BACK TO TANKING IF YOUR TEAM IS STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PACK....

So by this ridiculous logic, if the Kings had won the lottery with their 0.7% chance instead of the Bulls with their 1.7% chance, then you would be praising Theus for trying to win every game because if he hadn't, and we had lost a couple more games, we would have a crappy draft pick?

 

[Kingster]

Well just like last year im seriously disappointed again after the draft lottery.

heres some numbers...
this year
>5 games separated us from the 1st pick.
last year...
> 1 game separated us from the first pick.
> 2 games from the second pick and
> sure enough we LOST the tie breaker for the 8th and 9th pick.

SO THIS BRINGS ME BACK TO TANKING IF YOUR TEAM IS STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PACK....

this is my opinion... But I think that winning the lotto by moving into the top 3 spots is much more of a moral booster (for the players and fans) than playing your vets big min's late in the season trying to eek out meaningless games....that will in the end only hurt your future in the sense that your team sucks bad enough to miss the playoffs and personal wise your already looking at not being in the best spot to land a impact player that will help turn around your sorry team.

yes the draft and lotto are a gamble but it helps when you have a GM with the uncanny ability to find and draft great talent. and by tanking your basically allowing this GM better odds at better players the will in turn make your team better in the future!

Muss and Reggie blew it two straight years now. drive up the wins! mess with the young guys mins! win win win ! with nothing at stake other than losing out on talent!

We should have shut down Brad way before we did and started Hawes for alot more games. Douby and Williams should have played more! We should have called up all the best D-league players and tried to find a gem (yeah we were at the limit of active players who cares) L.Wright, Lue, A.Johnson should have never been given Kings uniforms.

I agree with everything you say except your focus on the coaching staff. This has everything to do with Petrie, not Theus. Petrie manufactured a team for +/- .500 ball - Miki Moor, Miller, Artest, Salmons, and a bunch of young guys. He put together the PERFECT team for mediocrity, not for getting high draft picks. Theus's job is to make the most wins as possible, and until he gets ORDERS from the front office, he's going to do exactly that. It's all on Petrie. The part that is beyond laughable is the talk about this being a "young" team. BS. Miller, Artest, Salmons, Moore - they are not young. They can't ever be the core for a team that could possibly vie for a championship. All they can be is TRADE FODDER to get the young guys that could possibly vie for a championship. Yeah, they might get you to the 8th playoff spot next year. BIG FREAKING DEAL. THEN WHAT? Then they get older, lose trade value and you continue on and on in mediocre never-never land.

 

[SacKings7]

heat executed it perfectly. got a top 2 pick. shawn marion's huge expiring will come off the books after this season. they'll be back in the swing of things in a season or two. thats how rebuilding gets done.

I agree seeing as they got out of paying Shaq's awful contract but, who said they're not re-signing Marion?

 

[VF21]

This is often misunderstood. There are entirely too many people here and elsewhere who are wrong in thinking that this = tanking. This strategy is NOT tanking. As long as the coach puts the best players that he has at his disposal on the court and coaches to win, it's not tanking. As long as the players on the court play to win, it's not tanking.

It's on the owners and the GM to put the team in the best position for the future, not the coach. It's not Theus' job to not play Artest and Miller and Bibby to make sure we don't win, it's Petrie's job to make sure that Artest and Miller and Bibby aren't on the team to be played to begin with. And if Kevin Martin and four other guys aren't enough to win, even playing as hard as they can... oh well.

I think you've expressed it perfectly. And I still maintain that NOT playing perfectly healthy players is the recipe for disaster. Once you instill an attitude of "who cares" in a player, can you really expect them to be able to turn it back on when the need arises?

I guess I'm just dense because the "core rebuilding strategy" that Bricklayer and others seem to want to employ seems like it would be very good IF - and that is a huge "IF" - the games were played in a vacuum. They aren't, though, and the need to find a way to still keep fans coming while trying to rebuild is something pretty much every team not located in Los Angeles struggles with.

 

[VF21]

I ...it is absolutely a valid strategy for a coach to play younger, lesser (currently) players over older, better (currently) vets.

Could you cite some examples where this has worked successfully? You're saying to sit the good guys while they're still capable in favor of untested rookies for significant parts of the season? I can only imagine one outcome - chaos.

Your theory seems to be that an owner will have no problem with myriads of empty seats and little to no fanbase because it will all get better in the long round. That's a pretty big gamble for a businessman to take. While it might look good on paper, I just don't see it happening in real life. And if it's not happening, I think there's a really easy explanation. There are other ways to do it...

Memphis stunk because they traded Pau Gasol away. They didn't sit him on the bench and ignore him while playing lesser players - nor would they IMHO.

Trading Bibby away was, again just MHO, an example of the right way to do a rebuild - or at least a small part of one. We received expirings and a potential player in Williams. If I'm reading you correctly, you would have been okay with us sitting Mike down (had he not been injured) and starting Douby for the season. How does that help anyone?

My main problem with the "tank" philosophy is that you're talking about having real people do things that run totally contrary to everything they've worked for their entire lives. You don't win any respect from your team by doing that, as I think Theus quickly learned.

Anyway, my rants on this subject tend to go on way too long so I'll leave it at that.

 

[GoGoGadget]

I think you've expressed it perfectly. And I still maintain that NOT playing perfectly healthy players is the recipe for disaster. Once you instill an attitude of "who cares" in a player, can you really expect them to be able to turn it back on when the need arises?

I guess I'm just dense because the "core rebuilding strategy" that Bricklayer and others seem to want to employ seems like it would be very good IF - and that is a huge "IF" - the games were played in a vacuum. They aren't, though, and the need to find a way to still keep fans coming while trying to rebuild is something pretty much every team not located in Los Angeles struggles with.

You don't have to look any further than this board to see that their current strategy isn't working either. Wallowing in mediocrity breeds disinterest, and the lack of game discussion (the end of your PBP threads, the end of Brick's grade threads, etc.) around here toward the end of the season is motivated by the same ennui that will, and already has, lead to a decline in game attendance. People need some sort of movement to stay interested -- suck and the fans will band together, win and the fans will support, stay the same and... hey, let's go see Iron Man and check the score when we get out. There's just no point in dedicating 3+ hours and 50+ dollars to watching the game unfold when you already know how everything is going to end up.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

While the merits of how to abuse the current system have been debated on an annual basis here, I think this whole discussion is a better example of the reason why the NBA urently needs to change the lottery system. I cannot criticize the Heat for abusing the current rules, but the fact that people would praise them for shutting down their 3 best players and letting a bunch of D-leaguers run wild for the final 2 months of the year is hardly good for the NBA. This is hardly confined to one rogue team either, it has become a disturbing trend.

To move this discussion another direction, I really think the NBA needs to go back to the old system of every lottery team having 1 ping pong ball, giving them all an equal shot at a top pick. The one change being that only the top 3 picks are done via lottery (instead of all 12 like it used to be). I know the arguments against this, so here is my rational and I would be interested in your feedback.

1 - Don't the wost teams deserve the best picks? Isn't it counter-productive if they get stuck with a bad pick the year they are bad?

I really do not see this as being a problem. After all what is worse for the fans of a team, getting the #4 pick the year you have the worst record or getting stuck in "no man's land" for years being just good enough to never get a top draft pick and having no chance at being relavent? In this proposed system, every lottery team would have a roughly 20% chance of landing a top 3 pick, so even if the team with the worst record only got a very good player at #4 this year, they would continue to have a 20% chance at landing a pick that could obtain a star player every year they were still a non-playoff team.

To me this would encourage team's to improve and be competitive through the end of the season. There would be far less motivation to tank, as you could develop your players and still have a 20% chance at a top 3 pick.

2 - Wouldn't it be terrible if a good team that barely missed the playoffs landed a top pick? They barely need the help.

I've never understood why this is seen as a bad thing. I don't get how making a mediocre team incrementally better so that they can be slaughtered by a contender in the playoffs is considered a good outcome, but creating a new, elite NBA team is bad. Aside from how boring they became, was it bad for the NBA that Duncan and Robinson played together and created a foil for th Lakers? Was it bad for the NBA that Shaq and Penny got paired together instead of toling away on different mediocre teams? Would it really hurt the NBA if the Warriors landed Beasley/Rose or if the Hornets had landed Durant/Oden last year? As educated as fans are nowadays, I think even the fans of the worst teams would appreciate that even if they got unlucky initially, as they improved they would always have a 25% chance of landing a difference maker.

Overall, I think a system is clearly broken if educated, NBA fans are advocating shutting players down, playing D leaguers and wanting their team to be as bad as possible in the name of more ping pong balls. Any lottery system should encourage teams to compete and encourage them to improve as much as possible instead of rewarding chicanery and incompetence. If every team that did not make the playoffs had an equal shot at instant relevance - fans would remain more engaged with their teams and teams would have little to no motivation to tank, instead they would want to have as much talent as possible to put around their eventual star.

 

[uolj]

I came up with a plan last year to reduce the gap between the odds between the worst and the best lottery teams, but at the moment your post convinced me that I'd be fine with equal weighting.

Limiting it to the top 3 picks getting selected via ping-pong balls should enough to make the bad teams good again. And a mediocre team getting a top pick is actually a great thing. It makes it more likely to get great teams.

However, you also don't want a team that knows they will get crushed in the first round to lose on purpose to get a 1 in 5 shot at the top 3 pick. I think that's the reason I wouldn't mind a bit more weighting (but much less than the current system). Either way, though, I think it would decrease the incentive to try to lose games. Playing the young guys will still be smart, but it would help prevent teams from getting too close to Slim's definition of tanking.

 

[Jerryaki]

didn't read this thread fully but...how do 14 teams each have a 20% shot at something???

 

[Capt. Factorial]

didn't read this thread fully but...how do 14 teams each have a 20% shot at something???

Because it was in reference to getting a top-3 pick, not just the top pick. 3 teams get a top-3 pick out of 14, each with equal probability, 3/14 is 21.4%.

 

[Jerryaki]

Because it was in reference to getting a top-3 pick, not just the top pick. 3 teams get a top-3 pick out of 14, each with equal probability, 3/14 is 21.4%.

oh i see, thanks!

 

[uolj]

Leave it to Capt. Factorial to help us out with the math.

 

[kingsfan101]

Because it was in reference to getting a top-3 pick, not just the top pick. 3 teams get a top-3 pick out of 14, each with equal probability, 3/14 is 21.4%.

Well, if we really want to get technical, each team would have (1/14+1/13+1/12) chance of landing one of the top 3 picks, giving each team about a 23.17% chance of landing one of the top 3

 

[uolj]

I don't think that's right because you have to factor in the fact that you can't win more than one pick:

(1/14) + ((1 - (1/14)) * (1/13)) + ((1 - ((1/14) + ((1 - (1/14)) * (1/13)))) * (1/12))

Since (1 - (1/14)) is 13/14 and 13/14 * 1/13 is 1/14, then you have:

(1/14) + (1/14) + ((1 - (2/14)) * (1/12))

And since 12/14 * 1/12 is 1/14 you end up with:

(1/14) + (1/14) + (1/14)



P.S. I might be wrong.

 

[kingsfan101]

I don't think that's right because you have to factor in the fact that you can't win more than one pick:

(1/14) + ((1 - (1/14)) * (1/13)) + ((1 - ((1/14) + ((1 - (1/14)) * (1/13)))) * (1/12))

Since (1 - (1/14)) is 13/14 and 13/14 * 1/13 is 1/14, then you have:

(1/14) + (1/14) + ((1 - (2/14)) * (1/12))

And since 12/14 * 1/12 is 1/14 you end up with:

(1/14) + (1/14) + (1/14)



P.S. I might be wrong.

Ah yes, you are right. I did miss that out.

 

[hrdboild]

You make a pretty convincing argument Sptsjunkie. Equally weighting the top three picks does make the whole lottery scenario a lot more interesting. The only advantage to having the worst record then would be to ensure you get at worst the #4 pick, which isn't a terrible outcome either but certainly not the same advantage it is now. I think that arrangement actually benefits everyone. Teams in the 5-14 range have more motivation to reach the playoffs because even at the 14th pick they're guaranteed the same chance of getting into the top 3 that they would have at the 5th pick. Considering the real prize of the draft is usually found in the top 3 picks, it doesn't completely punish the worst teams, but it doesn't give them nearly the same reward either. I like it.

Of course, there is always the fluke chance that the same team gets lucky two or more years in a row but then if you're drafting properly, you shouldn't need to win too many lotteries before making it into the playoffs. It does have the potential to imbalance the league though. Possibly teams which win the #1 pick are ineligible for that pick in the following year?