would you prefer wins or hard fought losses?

[uolj]

There are two separate interests of the sports fan. The first is in watching the competition itself and rooting for your team to win. The second is in your team winning the ultimate prize of a championship.

Normally the two go hand in hand, as it's difficult to win a championship if you're not winning every game you can. But when your team is rebulding, the two are in conflict. For a rebuilding team that doesn't have the pieces yet to be a contender, losing in the short term does generally provide a better chance at a championship. So each and every game you watch you must balance the two interests you have in your team.

So I completely understand those who prefer wins because they just value the first interest over the second. It's not about who is a thinker and who is short-sighted, it's about how we each derive our enjoyment from being a fan.

Now, I don't agree with those who have a preference for the first interest that try to rationalize that preference by claiming that losses aren't helpful in the long run. For the most part those claims just aren't logical. I'd prefer people just be honest and say they get more enjoyment from rooting for a win now than they do hoping for a championship later.

But in the end there are completely legitimate reasons to have either view, and there are a whole bunch of us that have a hard time reconciling the two.

 

[uolj]

As to my own preferences... I usually root for a win while watching but would prefer losses overall. So when it's a close game and the game winner misses I get mad/sad for a few seconds and then cheer up pretty quickly.

 

[Rookie]

As to my own preferences... I usually root for a win while watching but would prefer losses overall. So when it's a close game and the game winner misses I get mad/sad for a few seconds and then cheer up pretty quickly.

same here.

And a nice write up in your post.

 

[Mateo]

I end up posting this a lot, because people stubbornly forget it every few months:

The achievements of guys drafted #1 to #20 over a 20 year span. Note the huge falloff after the Top 5.

Meh. Means little. Especially the last two columns. Uh, popularity contests, much.

 

[G_M]

Meh. Means little. Especially the last two columns. Uh, popularity contests, much.

Not so sure about that. It's rare to see a title contending team that does not have at least ONE high lottery pick. Isn't that the basic point?

However, if you let the "kids" play and they overachieve it's hard to argue with that. The issue will be if Reggie feels his job is in jeopardy then I think he will play the vets more. It may be just enough to push us out of the top 5.....

 

[Kingster]

You play all the kids and then you hope for the win. If you play Hawes, Greene, Thompson, Brown, and Martin (when he gets back) for most of the minutes, you're going to develop the youth, have a lot of close losses, get a higher draft pick, and still have an entertaining product.

 

[VF21]

There are two separate interests of the sports fan. The first is in watching the competition itself and rooting for your team to win. The second is in your team winning the ultimate prize of a championship.

Normally the two go hand in hand, as it's difficult to win a championship if you're not winning every game you can. But when your team is rebulding, the two are in conflict. For a rebuilding team that doesn't have the pieces yet to be a contender, losing in the short term does generally provide a better chance at a championship. So each and every game you watch you must balance the two interests you have in your team.

So I completely understand those who prefer wins because they just value the first interest over the second. It's not about who is a thinker and who is short-sighted, it's about how we each derive our enjoyment from being a fan.

Now, I don't agree with those who have a preference for the first interest that try to rationalize that preference by claiming that losses aren't helpful in the long run. For the most part those claims just aren't logical. I'd prefer people just be honest and say they get more enjoyment from rooting for a win now than they do hoping for a championship later.

But in the end there are completely legitimate reasons to have either view, and there are a whole bunch of us that have a hard time reconciling the two.

Very well put ... I think my problem is I want wins AND hard-fought losses, because I live more in the moment than in the thought of the eventual championship.

I think any of us who have been fans since before 2002 may view things a little differently than those who came to the Kings later. But it's all part and parcel of being a Kings fan. The nice thing is that a lot of the bandwagon fans disappeared when the Kings quit winning so there's plenty of room for all of the rest of us.

 

[John Galt]

There are two separate interests of the sports fan. The first is in watching the competition itself and rooting for your team to win. The second is in your team winning the ultimate prize of a championship.

Normally the two go hand in hand, as it's difficult to win a championship if you're not winning every game you can. But when your team is rebulding, the two are in conflict. For a rebuilding team that doesn't have the pieces yet to be a contender, losing in the short term does generally provide a better chance at a championship. So each and every game you watch you must balance the two interests you have in your team.

So I completely understand those who prefer wins because they just value the first interest over the second. It's not about who is a thinker and who is short-sighted, it's about how we each derive our enjoyment from being a fan.

Now, I don't agree with those who have a preference for the first interest that try to rationalize that preference by claiming that losses aren't helpful in the long run. For the most part those claims just aren't logical. I'd prefer people just be honest and say they get more enjoyment from rooting for a win now than they do hoping for a championship later.

But in the end there are completely legitimate reasons to have either view, and there are a whole bunch of us that have a hard time reconciling the two.

Best post I've seen on this ugly topic!

 

[VF21]

The issue will be if Reggie feels his job is in jeopardy then I think he will play the vets more. It may be just enough to push us out of the top 5.....

There could be another side to that scenario, however. If Joe Maloof continues to make it clear that he wants the kids on the floor, Theus may conclude (win or lose) his job depends on developing Jason, Donte, Spencer, Bobby B, etc. Unfortunately, I don't think any of us (perhaps even including Reggie in the assumption) can gauge n November what's going to be happening in the rest of the season.

 

[NME]

You play all the kids and then you hope for the win. If you play Hawes, Greene, Thompson, Brown, and Martin (when he gets back) for most of the minutes, you're going to develop the youth, have a lot of close losses, get a higher draft pick, and still have an entertaining product.

This is how I feel. When I'm watching a given game, I'm always rooting for the win, but when all is said and done I still feel good after a competitive loss if the young guys contributed significantly to it.

What is not that satisfying on a macro-level is to win games primarily on the efforts of players that have no long-term future with the franchise. The ideal situation for me at this point is to play the kids and have them be competitive enough to show great promise for the future, but generally fall short due to issues that experience will correct in time.

 

[ZZE916]

I just want to see energetic, entertaining basketball this year. I want to see the youngsters develop. I really don't care about the record. If the Kings end the season with a horrible record, that will give them a higher draft pick. I they have a surprisingly good record, that's fine too (as long as it was accomplished by using the youngs).

But there are other considerations. Coach Theus' job security will probably be based on the record. The possibility of a new arena, and the team remaining in Sacramento will too. Wins generally equal more people in seats. More people mean more income and the ability to go after those free agents in 2010 in an economically responsible manner.

 

[VF21]

Coach Theus' job security will probably be based on the record. .

I think that may be the biggest misconception floating around out there. The Maloofs have done everything but hire planes to write it across the sky:

Play The Kids!!!

They're well aware that playing the kids will most likely lead to fewer wins. They (the Maloofs) REALLY want to see energy, heart, hustle, some defense and maybe some kind of offensive system being developed. If Theus does those things, he's looking at a bright future with the Kings.

If, on the other hand, Reggie decides it's about wins more than the future, he'll be the next statistic in the unemployment figures.

 

[Bricklayer]

So I completely understand those who prefer wins because they just value the first interest over the second. It's not about who is a thinker and who is short-sighted, it's about how we each derive our enjoyment from being a fan.

Which was a nice post and a good attempt at being the voice of reason, except for the part in red.

I doubt there is a single person taking the long view who actually finds hoping for a championship to be more fun than winning. But the two are NOT at odds. That is the rub. The only difference between someone looking to the future and somebody who is a win win now now gerbil is that the person looking to the future has a plan to win MORE. This is not a debate between people who like to win vs. people who like to hope. This is a debate between people willing to win less vs. people trying to win more. That is the short sighted aspect. It is not only a question of quality wins (i.e. championships), it is a question of pure volume. Wanting to "win" when wins reult in stagnation and lower future win totals isn't valuing wins more. Its valuing wins TODAY over wins in the future. Its being shortsighted and stuck in the now.

When you have something special you really really want, you quit spending for a few months and save for it. That is not because you enjoy thinking about your future purchase more than you would enjoy all the smaller things you could be buying if you were not saving. It is because you know that your future purchase is going to bring you MORE enjoyment than all the little junk and trinkets that you would be piling up otherwise. You aren't being a monk and swearing off pleasure. You are maximizing your long term pleasure via an intelligent well thought out plan.

Think one of our posters has this appropriate quote in his sig:

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." - Sun Tzu

 

[Jerryaki]

(aside: i hear amare's new nickname is sun tzu. man, that is a bad nickname.)

brick: while i disagree with the "win now" contingent, there may be a rationale for it. i don't live in the sacramento area, so if this team moves, my fan-ship (?) moves right along with it. but that might not be the same for others. for them, why bother thinking long-term if the team might not even be around locally for them to root for?

i've also heard the points for "win now" before, usually to the effect of "you don't know what the future holds" (e.g. draft picks can be a bust/lotto can screw you, injuries to stars, free agents suck, etc.). so for those people, i guess the net present value of a win now is worth more than more possible wins later. to use your analogy, they don't want to save for that special something if someone else might buy it before them. then they end up with nothing.

like i said, i don't agree with these reasonings, but would like to see your responses to them.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Which was a nice post and a good attempt at being the voice of reason, except for the part in red.

I doubt there is a single person taking the long view who actually finds hoping for a championship to be more fun than winning. But the two are NOT at odds. That is the rub. The only difference between someone looking to the future and somebody who is a win win now now gerbil is that the person looking to the future has a plan to win MORE. This is not a debate between people who like to win vs. people who like to hope. This is a debate between people willing to win less vs. people trying to win more. That is the short sighted aspect. It is not only a question of quality wins (i.e. championships), it is a question of pure volume. Wanting to "win" when wins reult in stagnation and lower future win totals isn't valuing wins more. Its valuing wins TODAY over wins in the future. Its being shortsighted and stuck in the now.

When you have something special you really really want, you quit spending for a few months and save for it. That is not because you enjoy thinking about your future purchase more than you would enjoy all the smaller things you could be buying if you were not saving. It is because you know that your future purchase is going to bring you MORE enjoyment than all the little junk and trinkets that you would be piling up otherwise. You aren't being a monk and swearing off pleasure. You are maximizing your long term pleasure via an intelligent well thought out plan.

Think one of our posters has this appropriate quote in his sig:

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." - Sun Tzu

100% truth.

/thread

 

[uolj]

Which was a nice post and a good attempt at being the voice of reason, except for the part in red.

I doubt there is a single person taking the long view who actually finds hoping for a championship to be more fun than winning. But the two are NOT at odds. That is the rub. The only difference between someone looking to the future and somebody who is a win win now now gerbil is that the person looking to the future has a plan to win MORE. This is not a debate between people who like to win vs. people who like to hope. This is a debate between people willing to win less vs. people trying to win more. That is the short sighted aspect. It is not only a question of quality wins (i.e. championships), it is a question of pure volume. Wanting to "win" when wins reult in stagnation and lower future win totals isn't valuing wins more. Its valuing wins TODAY over wins in the future. Its being shortsighted and stuck in the now.

When you have something special you really really want, you quit spending for a few months and save for it. That is not because you enjoy thinking about your future purchase more than you would enjoy all the smaller things you could be buying if you were not saving. It is because you know that your future purchase is going to bring you MORE enjoyment than all the little junk and trinkets that you would be piling up otherwise. You aren't being a monk and swearing off pleasure. You are maximizing your long term pleasure via an intelligent well thought out plan.

Think one of our posters has this appropriate quote in his sig:

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." - Sun Tzu

Hmm... I'm trying to figure out a way to explain this.

I don't think you understand the idea of the win now sentiment. You're basically saying that winning in the long run is better, and if you like winning in the long run then it's better to root for winning in the long run. I don't know the name of it but that's a logical fallacy.

You've got to look at it from the perspective of somebody whose enjoyment of rooting for the team to win now is paramount over any other. Rooting is the key word there I think. The enjoyment is in the watching and the cheering and the hoping. The enjoyment is in the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. The enjoyment is immediate. It is not about build-up, it is not about a long haul. Once the game is over we go back to our mundane (or exciting) lives but for two and a half hours we were loving the excitement of watching a competition and hoping one side prevails over the other.

If you want to call that short-sighted, fine. I'm not arguing that, it doesn't matter. It's still a legitimate viewpoint and a legitimate way to watch sports.

You say that you'd get more enjoyment if the team loses now because it means more wins in the future. But that puts the emphasis on the winning as the source of the enjoyment, when in reality it's the rooting for the winning that's the source of enjoyment for the win-now crowd. If I like rooting more than winning, then I enjoy 1985 - 1999 a heck of a lot better as a Kings fan than I do if I prefer winning over rooting. Picking one style of fandom over the other wouldn't have affected the outcome, so guess what, the people who prefer to try to win-now had a much better time then than those who prefer to try to lose to win more later. In fact, the win now people probably enjoyed 1999-2008 more, too.

The bottom line is that hoping the team wins now and letting the chips fall where they may leads to more enjoyment for many fans than focusing on how it all fits together in the grand scheme. It doesn't matter if that's not the case for you because it's about how we each derive our enjoyment from being a fan.

 

[ZZE916]

I think that may be the biggest misconception floating around out there. The Maloofs have done everything but hire planes to write it across the sky:

Play The Kids!!!

VF: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember an interview from about a week or so ago where Joe Maloof said that he was interested in wins, AND developing the kids. That's quite a difficult situation to be in as a coach. I can't find the interview, but perhaps someone can help me out. I admit that every quote I've seen since then has emphasized developing the kids, but that one interview really caught my attention.

 

[NME]

I seem to remember an interview from about a week or so ago where Joe Maloof said that he was interested in wins, AND developing the kids. That's quite a difficult situation to be in as a coach.

The Maloofs have been very clear that all they expect is winvelopment.

 

[fnordius]

I want 35-point wins against the Lakers, period.

Aside from that, in years when we have an actual shot at a title, the more wins the better, I want HCA and... why not?

In years when we have no shot at a title, I'll settle for seeing good development of the younger players while gaining lottery position. Losses aren't as fun to watch, but they still give me hope for the future, and as a fan of a struggling team, I need that.

If wins meant a ton to me, I would have given up on the franchise 15 years ago and become one of those fans that chases after bandwagons to hop onto. This is all stuff I've been through before, and I'm willing to defer gratification.

 

[origkds]

For me there are only two reasons you may not want to win. One is if you are playing against children and it is a learning experience. And two is if you are playing against someone or team, that out of pure charity, you feel would benefit from winning more than you (this is closely tied to reason 1). The best players on the team should be out there on the floor trying to win every night. I happen to believe that some of our kids are the best players on the team but I only want them out there if they help the team win. I turn on the TV or go to the games to watch the Kings win basketball games. When we win I feel good, when we lose I feel bad. There is no gray area for me. We are not playing against children or out of charity. In any sport you play fair and you always play to win, always.

 

[uolj]

First, we all want the players to play hard and play to win. I'm not sure anybody here actually wants the players to dog it or lose on purpose.

Second, the people who would pick "hard fought losses" prefer that precisely because it means more wins in the long run. So everybody here actually wants the team to win.

I'm sure you were referring to "now" when you say win, but you have to admit there is some logic to wanting something to happen because it means more winning down the line.

 

[fnordius]

So everybody here actually wants the team to win.

Exactly. Some people are happy with less wins now if it means more wins later. Others aren't convinced that less wins now will deliver, down the road. But everyone wants wins.

 

[Eclipse]

This is a toughie. To be clear, I'd abhor any team that loses on purpose by dogging it on the court. That's different than keeping an eye out to the future and playing the young players that will matter 2-5 yrs from now, and losing now (not on purpose) because of that. To me, that's intelligent management of a basketball team that's not going to win it all this year or next, but have a young nucleus of players that may contend 4-5 yrs from now, and grooming the talent for that, and hoping that everything will fall into place at the right time (and not putting all of our eggs in one basket in hopes of a Lebron type #1 future draft pick). If you look back to the creation of our championship caliber team in the 90's, a lot of luck (with intelligent risks by Petrie) got us there. Peja who? What, Webber cried when he heard he was traded to us? Hmm, Bibby or Jason? Isn't Vlade over the hill? etc, etc. Yeah, I remember those emotional roller-coaster rides. Up down and around we go!

 

[Kingzrool]

Oh yeah!

Classic lins and wosses debate plus the usual juvenile questioning of fandom. I saw the title and waited till it hit three pages then came in for the entertainment.

 

[kupman]

Oh yeah!

Classic lins and wosses debate plus the usual juvenile questioning of fandom.

I think that there should be separate section just for this type of discussion. It could be entitled "the real fans vs. the we are really smart fans"

We could put it right next to a new section simply titled "the Webber trade."

 

[SacKings7]

I think that there should be separate section just for this type of discussion. It could be entitled "the real fans vs. the we are really smart fans"

We could put it right next to a new section simply titled "the Webber trade."

Everyone can debate the "real fans" issue all you want, but nobody will deny that each win this season only hurts us a little bit more for the future. I don't want to see this team lose, but I know it's better for the team if we do. Ain't nothing wrong with a hard fought loss by a young team building for the future.

P.S. I know there are no guarantees in the draft, but a higher pick gives us more options to choose from. Talking about Shelden being the #5 pick is not an argument. Petrie didn't draft him, Billy Knight did.

 

[oaklandking]

Just win baby

 

[VF21]

VF: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember an interview from about a week or so ago where Joe Maloof said that he was interested in wins, AND developing the kids. That's quite a difficult situation to be in as a coach. I can't find the interview, but perhaps someone can help me out. I admit that every quote I've seen since then has emphasized developing the kids, but that one interview really caught my attention.

No, you may well be right. There is an apparent inconsistency but I think it's due in part to the fact that Joe and Gavin are not only owners, they're rabid fans. And, as fans, they get caught up in the moment and say things that perhaps later they would modify somewhat. The idea of player development is practical and I'm sure it's what Joe and Gavin, NBA franchise owners, want most. But when caught after an exciting win or a heart-breaking loss (or, in this case IIRC an exciting loss), Joe speaks as the FAN and not the owner.

Only the reporters involved actually know the timelines involved in the quotes they use. And they don't always write their stories in chronological order...

There was an article in the Bee that said Petrie pretty much said (as much as Geoff Petrie ever says anything) that it's not time to judge Theus yet. In essence, I think Petrie was telling the Bee to quit trying to draw premature conclusions but, of course, the Bee didn't carch his drift. They may have been distracted by the oodling hens.



Reggie needs to work with the kids and put the best possible product on the court. I think there's a definition of "best possible product" out there that doesn't hinder the kids but doesn't force them into situations they cannot possibly survive. It's a tightrope walk right now, and I think/pray Theus is up to the task. We have a lot of young potential on our team and if properly developed I know it will reap major dividends in the future.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[AleksandarN]

Here is what I do not understand about the "win now" fans. What do they want to win? It is not like we are Boston or the Spurs that have the talent to win the Championship. We are not those teams we are in a process of rebuilding so winning should not take the place of developing our youth. If we lose games because of it so be it. Development is more important. I honestly believe its not up to the coach to determine if we get a high pick or not it is up to management to make trades to free up our youth in process get us closer to a higher draft pick.

 

[Kingster]

This is how I feel. When I'm watching a given game, I'm always rooting for the win, but when all is said and done I still feel good after a competitive loss if the young guys contributed significantly to it.

What is not that satisfying on a macro-level is to win games primarily on the efforts of players that have no long-term future with the franchise. The ideal situation for me at this point is to play the kids and have them be competitive enough to show great promise for the future, but generally fall short due to issues that experience will correct in time.

Exactly. And when you win with the young guys you are totally happy that they won, not only because they won, but because they need to win to maintain their motivation to continue to get better. And at that point a loss that could yield a lower draft pick is very palatable.