Torn about game result

[ninjabiscuit]

I'm very torn...I love, love, love the fact that we won this game.

But it seems like there is a divide on this board between people who want to see this team improve this season, and people who want to see them lose so that we have a better chance in the draft. I am personally in the camp that believes that tanking should not be a viable strategy. That because from a (possibly naive) standpoint, I have always heard that you try your best to win the game. Period. If you don't encourage your players to view the game in that same light, you encourage a losing mindset, etc.

But I also understand that because of the mechanics of the draft, the philosophy exists that because of the way the rules work, it's a viable (and sometimes necessary) way to improve your team. I believe that the mechanics of the drafting system require you to look at the system that way, because otherwise you are at a competitive disadvantage. I would be curious to know what other people on this board think. Some seem to think that it's cheating. Some think that everyone is doing it, so we should do it too. It seems to me (reading between the lines) that some think that it's okay to do it without making it obvious (via rotations). If there is a way we could have that conversation without any hurt feelings, I would be interested to hear what people have to say.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I'm very torn...I love, love, love the fact that we won this game.

But it seems like there is a divide on this board between people who want to see this team improve this season, and people who want to see them lose so that we have a better chance in the draft. I am personally in the camp that believes that tanking should not be a viable strategy. That because from a (possibly naive) standpoint, I have always heard that you try your best to win the game. Period. If you don't encourage your players to view the game in that same light, you encourage a losing mindset, etc.

But I also understand that because of the mechanics of the draft, the philosophy exists that because of the way the rules work, it's a viable (and sometimes necessary) way to improve your team. I believe that the mechanics of the drafting system require you to look at the system that way, because otherwise you are at a competitive disadvantage. I would be curious to know what other people on this board think. Some seem to think that it's cheating. Some think that everyone is doing it, so we should do it too. It seems to me (reading between the lines) that some think that it's okay to do it without making it obvious (via rotations). If there is a way we could have that conversation without any hurt feelings, I would be interested to hear what people have to say.

I think that a lot of posters here think of "tank" as some kind of catch-all word (the way Hawaiians use "Da Kine"), and either don't understand or willfully disregard the fact that actual tanking not only requires a particular and deliberate set of circumstances, but also has nothing to do with the actual product on the court: the coaches aren't tanking, they're coaching for their next jobs. The players aren't tanking, they're playing for their next contracts.

Everybody involved in the basketball game, once the ball gets tossed is playing/coaching to win, not to lose. Now, there may or may not be some activity transpiring within the organization, at the executive level, which sets the team up to be less-than-equipped to win basketball games in the short term, but that has nothing to do with the 13+6 we see out on the sideline every night... But, some fans, who are rather less pedantic than I am, don't feel that it's necessary to articulate the distinctions between what is happening on the court, and what the front office may or may not be doing, and so they just wrap it up, all nice and neat, with the "T-word."

And then, there is probably also a non-zero number of fans who have convinced themselves that, because we're losing, we have to be tanking. Because, otherwise, we'd just be a ****y team, and they may not be able to face that.

 

[Kingster]

I'm very torn...I love, love, love the fact that we won this game.

But it seems like there is a divide on this board between people who want to see this team improve this season, and people who want to see them lose so that we have a better chance in the draft. I am personally in the camp that believes that tanking should not be a viable strategy. That because from a (possibly naive) standpoint, I have always heard that you try your best to win the game. Period. If you don't encourage your players to view the game in that same light, you encourage a losing mindset, etc.

But I also understand that because of the mechanics of the draft, the philosophy exists that because of the way the rules work, it's a viable (and sometimes necessary) way to improve your team. I believe that the mechanics of the drafting system require you to look at the system that way, because otherwise you are at a competitive disadvantage. I would be curious to know what other people on this board think. Some seem to think that it's cheating. Some think that everyone is doing it, so we should do it too. It seems to me (reading between the lines) that some think that it's okay to do it without making it obvious (via rotations). If there is a way we could have that conversation without any hurt feelings, I would be interested to hear what people have to say.

The Kings coaches and players aren't going to purposefully lose games. Far from it. The Kings management, on the other hand, may pursue a team-building strategy in which they acknowledge to themselves that there is a good chance that this year may get them a high lottery pick. I doesn't mean that management has the goal of losing as their primary goal, but it may very well may be that they see it as an indirect consequence of how they build the team this year.

 

[VF21]

I'm very torn...I love, love, love the fact that we won this game.

But it seems like there is a divide on this board between people who want to see this team improve this season, and people who want to see them lose so that we have a better chance in the draft. I am personally in the camp that believes that tanking should not be a viable strategy. That because from a (possibly naive) standpoint, I have always heard that you try your best to win the game. Period. If you don't encourage your players to view the game in that same light, you encourage a losing mindset, etc.

But I also understand that because of the mechanics of the draft, the philosophy exists that because of the way the rules work, it's a viable (and sometimes necessary) way to improve your team. I believe that the mechanics of the drafting system require you to look at the system that way, because otherwise you are at a competitive disadvantage. I would be curious to know what other people on this board think. Some seem to think that it's cheating. Some think that everyone is doing it, so we should do it too. It seems to me (reading between the lines) that some think that it's okay to do it without making it obvious (via rotations). If there is a way we could have that conversation without any hurt feelings, I would be interested to hear what people have to say.

Good luck.

I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever root against the Kings. I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever root for them to lose. Why would I root for a loss? It won't effect the outcome of the game - unless I'm actually there in STA where I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever root for them to lose anyway.

Malone is building a TEAM. He is not going to risk destroying what little chemistry he's created so far by doing anything else than trying his best to win. And we will win some games that people will argue we should have lost in pursuit of the elusive ping-pong balls. They can think that all they like but I'm not buying into it for the simple reason the draft lottery is a crap shoot. And even if you win the #1 pick, you're not guaranteed overnight success. Greg Oden ring any bells?

The NBA draft is not set up for tanking. All too often the team with the worst record doesn't get the number one pick. I don't think tanking is cheating; I just think tanking is stupid and a ripoff to all those fans who pony up their hard-earned bucks to go see a game. They deserve to see the best effort their team can put forth. Sports was about entertaining the fans long before it was about "tanking" to get a better player in a draft.

But that's just my take...I'm sure lots of others will totally disagree.

NOTE: I"m moving this to its own thread for the simple reason there's no need to keep a game thread going long after it's ceased to be about the game.

 

[pshn80]

Agree with you, VF21, except that in my book tanking which is deliberately losing is cheating and thereby immoral.

 

[Glenn]

What do people call a FO that deliberately signs mediocre players and refuses to sign great players thus leading to a deliberately concocted team that will lose? Is this FO immoral?

I am not saying this is the Kings but this word tanking is being thrown around and some people are acting like their soul has been violated. Immoral???? I have great respect for you, psh80, but this is taking a game far too seriously.

I want us to have a poor record. Deal with it. I want us to have a poor record so we can dig ourselves out of this Maloofian hole.

This is the Cliff Notes version. For the real extended story, read below.

 

[bajaden]

I agree that players don't step on the floor with the idea of losing. I don't think a player worth his salt knows how to go out and intentionally lose. I'm not as sure about coaches, and by no means am I directing that comment at Malone. But if I'm the owner, and I want a high pick, I almost have to have the GM on board with me, because he is the one that makes the decisions on players. The bottom line is that talent wins games, and the Kings just don't have enough talent to win a lot of games. So I have no doubt that the Kings will be in the lottery, its just a matter of where they end up choosing.

Based on previous lottery's, the Kings probably have as good a chance of being number one from the 8th or 9th spot, as they do from the 3rd or 4th spot. I should point out that the Kings can miss the playoffs, and still lose their draft pick this year. They have to finish in the bottom 12. If they finish 13th or 14th, the pick goes back to Cleveland. So the worse possible scenario would be to just miss the playoffs, and lose their draft pick as well. Even at number 12, the Kings should get a good player, and the Kings need good players. And trust me, there will be a player chosen in the bottom half of the first round that will end up being a star. Lest we forget, IT was taken with the last pick in the 2nd round. Chandler Parsons was taken in the second round.

As for me, I root for the Kings to win every game I watch. But I do take solace in the fact that every loss gets us closer to a high draft pick. Now you may think that's flawed thinking, but to me, its logical. I don't live in La La land. Were not a good team, and we're going to lose a lot of games. That's a fact folks!!! So for me, I think its logical to embrace the final outcome, which is that we'll be in the lottery, and if so, then I hope we get as high a pick as possible. Because this team needs another impact player. Probably needs more than one. Sometimes you have to lose a battle in order to win the war.

 

[bajaden]

What do people call a FO that deliberately signs mediocre players and refuses to sign great players thus leading to a deliberately concocted team that will lose? Is this FO immoral?

I am not saying this is the Kings but this word tanking is being thrown around and some people are acting like their soul has been violated. Immoral???? I have great respect for you, psh80, but this is taking a game far too seriously.

I want us to have a poor record. Deal with it. I want us to have a poor record so we can dig ourselves out of this Maloofian hole.

Well, you may be immoral, but it probably has nothing to do with wanting the team to lose. When I think of immorality and sports, I think of a player getting paid to throw a game, or something of that ilk. I'd rather have an owner, or a GM that comes out and says this season isn't about winning or losing, but about changing the culture. That statement isn't about giving false hope to the fans. I think its being honest. The first time I heard that statement, I thought they know what they have, and what they need, and their going to take whatever measures necessary to make the proper changes. They weren't promising us the playoffs. Quite the contrary, they were preparing us for a losing season, but saying at the same time, were going to change the mentality of the team.

If I were to connect the word immoral to basketball, I think it would be to raise the hopes of your fan base with the expectation of making the playoffs when you know its not possible with the current roster. That's what the Maloofs used to do. They'd run big PR campaigns with a lot of bells and whistles. False hopes and promises is what we got from them for the last 6 or 7 years. As you just said, we're talking about a sport. I'd be more concerned about the morality of world leaders than whats going on in the sport of basketball. Never forget, Hope Springs Eternal...

 

[Glenn]

Well, you may be immoral, but it probably has nothing to do with wanting the team to lose. When I think of immorality and sports, I think of a player getting paid to throw a game, or something of that ilk. I'd rather have an owner, or a GM that comes out and says this season isn't about winning or losing, but about changing the culture. That statement isn't about giving false hope to the fans. I think its being honest. The first time I heard that statement, I thought they know what they have, and what they need, and their going to take whatever measures necessary to make the proper changes. They weren't promising us the playoffs. Quite the contrary, they were preparing us for a losing season, but saying at the same time, were going to change the mentality of the team.

If I were to connect the word immoral to basketball, I think it would be to raise the hopes of your fan base with the expectation of making the playoffs when you know its not possible with the current roster. That's what the Maloofs used to do. They'd run big PR campaigns with a lot of bells and whistles. False hopes and promises is what we got from them for the last 6 or 7 years. As you just said, we're talking about a sport. I'd be more concerned about the morality of world leaders than whats going on in the sport of basketball. Never forget, Hope Springs Eternal...

I admit to moments of immorality as defined by the predominant culture.

 

[Glenn]

BTW, I absolutely forgot that we needed to finish in the bottom 12 or we would lose our first round pick. THAT would be awful.

 

[Kingsfan23]

Players and coaches definitely aren't involved in the tank. Players fight for contracts. Coaches do as well, but more importantly if an organization ever explicitly told a coach to tank that would become full public knowledge the day that coach was ever fired, to the embarrassment of the organization. Management often does build teams for the direct benefit of attempting to gain high draft picks.. It is derisively labeled "treadmilling" when a team is constantly mediocre and hanging around in the mid lottery, and a certain amount of managers might prefer to suck than be slightly competitive and thus will unload proven talent for youth and potential.

 

[Kingsfan23]

BTW, I absolutely forgot that we needed to finish in the bottom 12 or we would lose our first round pick. THAT would be awful.

Yeah, I don't think we're in danger of not doing that

 

[kingsfan101]

I guess this has been said often enough, but probably is worth repeating anyway.

Rebuilding, tanking and throwing away games are slightly different concepts, all with the aim of short term pain for long term gain, but with different levels of morality.

Rebuilding is the good, honest way. The team realizes that it's window has closed, trades away its stars when they still have value (it's good for the stars too. Would they rather play in some meaningful games in the twilight of their career, or carry team not going anywhere to some meaningless wins), for picks and prospects, develops its kids, and competes for years on end. If it's able to do so in a stacked draft year (Boston this year), even better.

Tanking is the borderline (or outright) cheating way of sitting/underplaying your stars with fake/minor injuries. Didn't follow the NBA then, but from what I've heard, the Spurs did it with the Admiral to get TD. Look how it turned for them. It can work well for a team filled with role players surrounding a star. If the star sits, the team finds it difficult to win any games. We are actually a good candidate for this scenario. If DMC sits for extended periods with minor injuries (though frankly, it's difficult to identify injuries so), it might signify our plans to tank.

Throwing away games is outright cheating, and a disgrace to the game. Apart from stars sitting down, it also involves uninterested players not giving full effort, jacking up bad shots, centers/bad shooters taking majority of team shots, and more. I personally believe that if teams imbibe that culture, they can't improve. They shall need to drastically change the personnel, from management to players, to improve.

These are, BTW, my definitions of the terms. Others may have different interpretations, and the implications they have for the teams.

 

[Glenn]

Yeah, I don't think we're in danger of not doing that

Look at the Eastern Conference and project ahead that McLemore and Williams progress greatly and get back to me.

 

[kingsfan101]

Look at the Eastern Conference and project ahead that McLemore and Williams progress greatly and get back to me.

Think the relative strengths of conferences actually works in our favor.

In East, many bad teams shall make the POs, and shall miss out on lottery, even as much better teams in West compete for it.

As of now, we have the fourth worst record in the league, while we have played 6 more home games than roadies. Sure, we have had played some tough teams, and we might pick some wins when we play the Bucks, and Raptors, and Knicks etc. (though not a certainty, particularly on road), and once Landry gets back. However, I very much doubt we shall rise up so much to just miss the playoffs.

 

[KingMilz]

I am not torn I want the team to win regardless, I want to see DMC/IT leading the team to wins and I want to see the likes of Mclemore and Williams keep developing chemistry and improving I love every win and hate every loss. I don't like the feeling off being a 5-13 team. It's crazy to think 6-8 of our losses were razor thin ones as well.

 

[peacelate]

Look at the Eastern Conference and project ahead that McLemore and Williams progress greatly and get back to me.

This team won't finish out of the bottom 12. I assure you.

 

[dude12]

If you go back in the drafts, the best player is not necessarily made with the top pick.. As good as this draft is being made out to be, I still don't see the next Lebron James. I do see some very good players though. As long as we are in the top 7, we are in good shape. Remember there are always teams like Cleveland who will leave you scratching your head with their pick.

 

[macadocious]

Glenn I think you are confusing immoral and unethical.

 

[Glenn]

Glenn I think you are confusing immoral and unethical.

I'm using the term someone else used. I don't think I am the one confused. I am definitely immoral by any definition.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I agree that players don't step on the floor with the idea of losing. I don't think a player worth his salt knows how to go out and intentionally lose. I'm not as sure about coaches, and by no means am I directing that comment at Malone. But if I'm the owner, and I want a high pick, I almost have to have the GM on board with me, because he is the one that makes the decisions on players. The bottom line is that talent wins games, and the Kings just don't have enough talent to win a lot of games. So I have no doubt that the Kings will be in the lottery, its just a matter of where they end up choosing.

Based on previous lottery's, the Kings probably have as good a chance of being number one from the 8th or 9th spot, as they do from the 3rd or 4th spot. I should point out that the Kings can miss the playoffs, and still lose their draft pick this year. They have to finish in the bottom 12. If they finish 13th or 14th, the pick goes back to Cleveland. So the worse possible scenario would be to just miss the playoffs, and lose their draft pick as well...

Well, if you want to get pedantic about it (and you know I do...), we could finish above .500, and it still wouldn't cost us our draft pick unless we don't win* the lottery. And, keep in mind that we don't have to get the Number One overall pick in order to win* the lottery: while the team with the best non-playoff record has only gotten the #1 overall pick once, they've won* the lottery five times. At least three times (Seattle-'89, Orlando-'93, Charlotte-'99), that team has been .500 or better. That's more times than the team with the worst record has actually gotten the #1 overall.

On the flipside of that, we could finish with the tenth-worst record, and still lose the pick: teams get jumped in the lottery, all the time. I don't think that there's any precedent for a team as low as tenth getting jumped by three teams, but I do know that the team with the worst record has been jumped by three teams ten times (meaning, of course, that they not only don't get the #1 overall, but finish with the worst pick they mathematically could have had), which is a little more often than every third draft.

So, there are no guarantees either way. There aren't even any trends you can count on. That's why my philosophy is to root for wins at all times, and worry about the lottery when the lottery happens.





*- Since the draft lottery is held to determine who gets the top three picks, and not just Number One overall, if you finish in the Top Three, then you have, effectively, "won" the lottery.

 

[Glenn]

Well, if you want to get pedantic about it (and you know I do...), we could finish above .500, and it still wouldn't cost us our draft pick unless we don't win* the lottery. And, keep in mind that we don't have to get the Number One overall pick in order to win* the lottery: while the team with the best non-playoff record has only gotten the #1 overall pick once, they've won* the lottery five times. At least three times (Seattle-'89, Orlando-'93, Charlotte-'99), that team has been .500 or better. That's more times than the team with the worst record has actually gotten the #1 overall.

On the flipside of that, we could finish with the tenth-worst record, and still lose the pick: teams get jumped in the lottery, all the time. I don't think that there's any precedent for a team as low as tenth getting jumped by three teams, but I do know that the team with the worst record has been jumped by three teams ten times (meaning, of course, that they not only don't get the #1 overall, but finish with the worst pick they mathematically could have had), which is a little more often than every third draft.

So, there are no guarantees either way. There aren't even any trends you can count on. That's why my philosophy is to root for wins at all times, and worry about the lottery when the lottery happens.



*- Since the draft lottery is held to determine who gets the top three picks, and not just Number One overall, if you finish in the Top Three, then you have, effectively, "won" the lottery.

I think we can be moved down three spots but I have to think about it and frankly, after the trade, this is no longer a concern of mine. There are a couple shot blockers available around #10 and at this point it might be all we need.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

BTW, I absolutely forgot that we needed to finish in the bottom 12 or we would lose our first round pick. THAT would be awful.

Yeah, I don't think we're in danger of not doing that

Look at the Eastern Conference and project ahead that McLemore and Williams progress greatly and get back to me.

kingsfan101 has it right: even if you accept the premise that the eastern conference is a two-team league this season, that still means that six ****ty eastern conference teams are going to make the playoffs by accident. Even if we finish with a better record than all seven of the other east teams (unlikely), I very much doubt that we're going to finish higher than 12th in the west, especially considering that there are currently twelve teams in the west that are above, or within a game of, .500.

So, yeah, I think that the pro-tanking bandwagon can relax. All this sweating over wins is nonsense: there's no chance we finish out of the "money."

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I think we can be moved down three spots but I have to think about it and frankly, after the trade, this is no longer a concern of mine. There are a couple shot blockers available around #10 and at this point it might be all we need.

???

Trade?

:: opens another tab and checks Kings Rap ::

Well, I'll be damned: the things you miss out on when you spend hours combing through thirty years of draft history...

 

[Bricklayer]

Yeah, was going to eventually post in here, but I think this trade clarifies pretty quickly the front office's intentions. We may lose, but its not going to be on purpose/by design now. Who knows if we can make a run at a playoff spot in the West, but we certainly would in the East.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I feel moderately justified by this trade: I'm less than sold on Rudy Gay, since he's the prototypical "empty numbers" guy, but I've been saying since July that these guys weren't tanking.

 

[Chubbs]

I feel moderately justified by this trade: I'm less than sold on Rudy Gay, since he's the prototypical "empty numbers" guy, but I've been saying since July that these guys weren't tanking.

On the contrary, I don't think this moves the needles much in the win column. We are kinda an empty numbers team.

I can't decide if I hope I'm right or wrong about that.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

On the contrary, I don't think this moves the needles much in the win column.

It's not the least bit contrary. I said that we're not tanking; that means that we're playing to win. Just because we're playing to win, doesn't mean that we're going to win.

 

[Chubbs]

It's not the least bit contrary. I said that we're not tanking; that means that we're playing to win. Just because we're playing to win, doesn't mean that we're going to win.

I think we agree. It's an attempt to get better, that isn't enormously likely to be a huge success. I'm in favor, and I have not been a fan of gay in the past.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I think we agree. It's an attempt to get better, that isn't enormously likely to be a huge success.

Well, why did you say "On the contrary," then?