You have the 1st seed locked up with 1 game left, do you rest your stars?

[spudfan]

Scenario 1: You are going to be the #1 seed in the playoffs. Any win or loss will not change the standings. Your coach benches all of the best players to lower injury risk and rest players.

Scenario 2: You are tied in the standings for the worst record in the NBA. You lose your game tonight, you get the best chance to draft the #1 pick.

In Scenario 1 you are saying you want to do what is in the best interest of your team to win a championship. It doesn't guarantee someone won't get hurt in the next game and it doesn't guarantee you will be the champions. In the second scenario you are also doing what is in the best interest of your team. Again, it doesn't guarantee you will get the #1 pick but it gives you the best chance.

I don't see a difference between the two. In both situations you are saying you are not going to try your best to win the game(s). You are cheapening the experience for the fans who buy tickets in both. You are not achieving the best record you can. So my question is directed towards people who do not believe in losing on purpose, do you think it is wrong to rest players for the playoffs?

 

[bajaden]

No its not wrong. And the two things aren't the same. In one scenario your tanking for the purpose of securing a better draft choice. In other words, your trying to lose on purpose. In resting your key players, your not trying to lose. Your odds might diminish, but the players your playing are still trying to win. Its called intent!!! You should never try to lose on purpose.

Now I'm one of those that would have been happy with a loss tonight, but I would never try to lose. Do think some other teams tanked on purpose? You bet I do, but two wrongs don't make a right. If you want to say something is alright because the other guy does it, then become a politician.

 

[spudfan]

It's called intent? The intent of both is to create the most favorable environment for your team when it is needed. One is for the current season and the other is for future seasons. Your odds greatly diminish when you rest your top players. It shows they do not care about the game. The team that doesn't care is gaining an advantage, and the team that does care loses an advantage. This is made possible because of some silly moral viewpoint that is is wrong to not play your best at all times. Sure, some of the individual players may be trying but I don't see how that is relevant when the organization they are playing for is not trying. I can't agree that it is important what some bench players are trying to do when the team clearly does not think the game is important.

I take it from your post that a team that intentionally loses games to secure a certain playoff matchup is not ok?

 

[Mass]

Spudfan, I understand you can't accept the W against the Lakers, and I feel pretty much the same way. We could have had our bench players out there all the time, but the reality is that we won that game. Get over it. I'm sure our future won't be totally destroyed by this win.

Nothing is sure about the lottery and the draft. Maybe, we lose this game, we get the 4th pick, we draft Drummond and he becomes a bust. Maybe, we lose this game, we get the 7th pick, we draft barnes or beal, they become stars and we are all happy. Let's wait and see how it works out.

 

[spudfan]

I really could not care less about the Lakers game in regards to this thread. I made this post to talk about the moves teams make that give them the best shot at a championship. A few percent extra might not end up making a difference in the draft. An extra game of rest before the post season may or may not be consequential. Whether the bulls are the number 1 or 2 seed may not effect anything... I think teams should do whatever they need to in order to give themselves the best shot of winning, within the rules.

As such, I hoped to discuss in here why certain strategies are accepted and others frowned upon. To hear other perspectives and opinions. Feel free to participate in other threads that discuss how the draft of #### did/did not make a difference to the outcome of season ####. This one is not about "maybes", so as you put it -- get over it.

 

[jcassio]

My only issue is that you don't have your players playing not to win. Just about anything short of that is in the gray area, and if the prize is big enough, it can probably be justified.

 

[spudfan]

My only issue is that you don't have your players playing not to win. Just about anything short of that is in the gray area, and if the prize is big enough, it can probably be justified.

Curious what you would consider a big enough prize to justify it? This also goes out to anyone else who is reading, where do you draw the line with either direction... intentionally losing games for draft position or sitting out players for rest. Would you need to have a Lebron type player in the draft to justify losing? A legitimate shot at winning the champions to justify resting players? Winning a round of the playoffs?

 

[Tyndel]

Its about Honor and Sportsmanlike Conduct. Both things sadly lacking in much of society today.

Comes down to what a coach/team/leadership can justify to themselves personally and will vary person to person. If option 1 is a home game and I am the coach then my stars will play very limited minutes. Not to try to lose but because there are going to be 18 thousand people there wanting to see a game and the product on the floor matters. I am also one of those idiots that will never ever try to lose in option 2 because my sense of honor is offended by tanking... There is a reason I don't open that horrible thread in the Personnel Moves section and why I couldn't read past the 3rd page of the game thread last night.

That doesn't mean that I don't understand the logic of either scenario but thankfully no matter my intellect as a human I am allowed to be illogical if I choose.

 

[spudfan]

Its about Honor and Sportsmanlike Conduct. Both things sadly lacking in much of society today.

Comes down to what a coach/team/leadership can justify to themselves personally and will vary person to person. If option 1 is a home game and I am the coach then my stars will play very limited minutes. Not to try to lose but because there are going to be 18 thousand people there wanting to see a game and the product on the floor matters. I am also one of those idiots that will never ever try to lose in option 2 because my sense of honor is offended by tanking... There is a reason I don't open that horrible thread in the Personnel Moves section and why I couldn't read past the 3rd page of the game thread last night.

That doesn't mean that I don't understand the logic of either scenario but thankfully no matter my intellect as a human I am allowed to be illogical if I choose.

I agree with all of what you say from a players perspective (except the limited minutes). When it comes from the viewpoint ownership/management, I think it is irresponsible to not take every advantage and make sure the product on the floor is the best it can be. I wouldn't ever consider asking the players to lose or play bad as I think that goes against their job. But I do think management can find other ways to lose (benching players) that don't compromise the players morals.

 

[jalfa]

well, I would certainly want to see which of my reserves/younger players can be relied upon for the playoffs/next season. rest them!

 

[JB_kings]

If you are not putting your best effort and product out on the floor every game... you are cheating those people who paid to see an NBA product. That includes fans and advertisers.

That also includes those owners out there that are not making their best effort to put an NBA quality product on the floor on purpose.

 

[spudfan]

well, I would certainly want to see which of my reserves/younger players can be relied upon for the playoffs/next season. rest them!

Never though of looking at it that way before. Maybe "resting" the best players more often during the season (not just the final weeks) is a good way to give the reserves/young guys more confidence and practice in game situations incase you need them. I had always just seen it as getting the big guns ready to go. This helps against the argument that resting the stars is just giving up... as it really does add other benefits.

 

[spudfan]

If you are not putting your best effort and product out on the floor every game... you are cheating those people who paid to see an NBA product. That includes fans and advertisers.

That also includes those owners out there that are not making their best effort to put an NBA quality product on the floor on purpose.

Can you see how those two points conflict, though? You say put your best effort and product out every game or you are cheating the fans and advertisers. You also say that includes the owners, but what if the owners direct a few losses which gives you a higher draft pick, or rest players so you have a better chance at winning a championship. That draft pick and championship would create more income for advertisers and more games (playoffs) for fans.

My opinion is it is not right to ask the players to lose, so the owners should be responsible for taking every advantage they can get to put that better product on the floor. Is it your opinion that "cheating" for a few games should never be done, no matter what the reward might be?

 

[est.1999]

Aside from Davis, it doesn't matter who we draft until we hire a legitimate coach. We have talent on this team.

 

[Warhawk]

No its not wrong. And the two things aren't the same. In one scenario your tanking for the purpose of securing a better draft choice. In other words, your trying to lose on purpose. In resting your key players, your not trying to lose. Your odds might diminish, but the players your playing are still trying to win. Its called intent!!! You should never try to lose on purpose.

Now I'm one of those that would have been happy with a loss tonight, but I would never try to lose. Do think some other teams tanked on purpose? You bet I do, but two wrongs don't make a right. If you want to say something is alright because the other guy does it, then become a politician.

Agreed 100%

I also agree that last night would have been a great opportunity to play some bench guys lots of minutes for their own development. But that is not my decision to make.

 

[JB_kings]

Can you see how those two points conflict, though? You say put your best effort and product out every game or you are cheating the fans and advertisers. You also say that includes the owners, but what if the owners direct a few losses which gives you a higher draft pick, or rest players so you have a better chance at winning a championship. That draft pick and championship would create more income for advertisers and more games (playoffs) for fans.

My opinion is it is not right to ask the players to lose, so the owners should be responsible for taking every advantage they can get to put that better product on the floor. Is it your opinion that "cheating" for a few games should never be done, no matter what the reward might be?

Not a conflict at all. Because it's been my experience that it rarely plays out that way in real life. If a front office from the ownership to the coaching staff is not conducting itself towards putting a winning product on the floor, then no amount of tanking is going to fix that. In the Kings case, they have been getting the players in the draft right for the most part, but failing at giving them the coaching needed in order to win. So the money wasted on a John Salmons or a Travis Outlaw instead of a great coach is penny wise and pound foolish.

And because of that and all the other owner related foolishness out at Arco over the past years, not even a good coach would associate themselves with this organization.

 

[spudfan]

Agreed 100%

I also agree that last night would have been a great opportunity to play some bench guys lots of minutes for their own development. But that is not my decision to make.

So you agree 100%... but you would be ok if we benched our best players so the other guys could get more "experience". Unless those guys are injured and can't play I really don't think I could turn a blind eye to what was going on. In regards to our team, our best players still have a lot of improving and growing to do. Benching them so other guys could "develop", when they still have a lot of developing to do, doesn't make sense to me. Some of the other teams that were "tanking" were pulling the injured/development card but I don't think a single person was buying it.

 

[spudfan]

Not a conflict at all. Because it's been my experience that it rarely plays out that way in real life.

Ah yes, it does rarely play out this way. Which is why it's fun to talk about!

 

[Glenn]

If this team lives or dies dependent on winning or losing last night, we are screwed and frankly, the biggest way to change this team is to change the coach, GM, and owners in any order you wish. One player this way or that isn't as important and we should look back on this draft 5 years from now and see if the win made much of a difference. I understand the statistics and wish we had lost although I rooted for a win - makes my head hurt. We have huge problems and nothing was settled last night. I wish it was that easy. We already have an underperforming team. What player makes us an adequately performing team? I sure don't know.

Sorry I didn't read the whole thread as I think it's rude but this is all I want to say and if it has been duplicated, then I haven't wasted too much time of yours or mine.

 

[Warhawk]

So you agree 100%... but you would be ok if we benched our best players so the other guys could get more "experience". Unless those guys are injured and can't play I really don't think I could turn a blind eye to what was going on. In regards to our team, our best players still have a lot of improving and growing to do. Benching them so other guys could "develop", when they still have a lot of developing to do, doesn't make sense to me. Some of the other teams that were "tanking" were pulling the injured/development card but I don't think a single person was buying it.

My job is to cheer on the players on the floor and want my team to do the best they can with who is on the floor. Coach/Management's job is to figure out who that is. I think you are being disingenuous with the "our best players need more work" argument. Of course they do! But we have a lot of guys in flux right now, some who may return, some who won't, and those guys need more evaluation time. In general, we know what DMC, Evans, and IT will give us night in and night out.

There is also a difference between benching guys and playing them less than normal minutes. Just a thought.

 

[spudfan]

My job is to cheer on the players on the floor and want my team to do the best they can with who is on the floor. Coach/Management's job is to figure out who that is. I think you are being disingenuous with the "our best players need more work" argument. Of course they do! But we have a lot of guys in flux right now, some who may return, some who won't, and those guys need more evaluation time. In general, we know what DMC, Evans, and IT will give us night in and night out.

There is also a difference between benching guys and playing them less than normal minutes. Just a thought.

The "our best players need more work" argument wasn't meant to be disingenuous. I made it more in regards to comparing them to a team like the Lakers. With the Lakers you have players like Kobe and Gasol who I think don't really learn much from games anymore as they have seen it all. I think Tyreke and Cousins are still learning a lot every game so benching them to develop other guys on the roster isn't the best course to improving the team if you are trying to get the most out of it.

 

[bajaden]

It's called intent? The intent of both is to create the most favorable environment for your team when it is needed. One is for the current season and the other is for future seasons. Your odds greatly diminish when you rest your top players. It shows they do not care about the game. The team that doesn't care is gaining an advantage, and the team that does care loses an advantage. This is made possible because of some silly moral viewpoint that is is wrong to not play your best at all times. Sure, some of the individual players may be trying but I don't see how that is relevant when the organization they are playing for is not trying. I can't agree that it is important what some bench players are trying to do when the team clearly does not think the game is important.

I take it from your post that a team that intentionally loses games to secure a certain playoff matchup is not ok?

I can't make it any clearer than, your always susposed to try and win. To intentionally lose, is wrong! Yes, intent is what its all about. Thats why you can either be tried for murder 1 or manslaughter. There's a difference between intending to murder someone, and accidently killing someone. Do you honestly think that a coach sits down with his team, and asks them to lose?

But let me put it a different way. Just what have the Kings earned this season? They've earned the second worse record in the western division. I would hardly reward that. What have the Lakers, Thunder, Heat, etc, earned. The right to rest their main guys for a game because they busted their butts all year long in search of excellence. They've earned the right to take a game off for one night. The Kings have earned nothing! But in baseball, hockey, football, and basketball, because of wanting competitiveness throughout the league, they give you a prize for earning nothing. The chance for a top draft pick.

You know what you get for earning nothing in track, golf, skiing, bowling, boxing, etc.? NOTHING!

 

[TyFreak Evans]

If you have the number 1 seed locked up with 1 game remaining, then H E to the double hockey sticks yeah you rest your key guys. If you have any seed locked up for that matter, then H E to the double hockey sticks you rest your key guys. Why the H E to the double hockey sticks would you want to risk injury to a key player? From the standpoint of a neutral fan, could you imagine being a Lakers fan, seeing Kobe Bryant play in the last game of the season, which means absolutely $hit in terms of playoff positioning, and suffering a season ending injury late in the 4th quarter??????

I have made my viewpoint about the next topic pretty clear over the past day or two, but when talking about draft positioning, I don't believe resting your guys accomplishes much since the NBA utilizes the lottery system. If you are content with, at worse, picking number 7, then ok, go ahead and tank, but the lottery doesn't even guarantee you a pick in the top 3, so why try to tank in order to position yourself for a pick in the top 3?????? Hell, why position yourself for the number 1 pick? When was the last time the team with the worst record picked number 1????? Thats the great thing about the NBA, that it does not reward you for tanking...

 

[rhythmless]

I'm pretty sure no coach has ever said to his players "tank the game." There's a line there between coach and player with the sanctity of the game. Strategizing big picture stuff is left to coaches and front office. To intimate to a player to not play his best is different imo. The front office should have told Smart to "play the bench." Make ti clear that it was in the best interest of the franchise. To lose the game and end up with a better, more ready rookie next year is also in the best interest of the coach. You can't say the same about players, who may or may not be there next year. They're always auditioning for their next contract. I can't ask someone to give up a better chance for their livelihood for the good of a company that will not give loyalty to the employee. That's the line I see.

Unless Smart got a directive from Petrie or Maloofs to *wink* "play the bench," I see no way an interim coach with a 2 year deal could make that decision autonomously. He's not Pop. So I put this horrendous decision on the front office.

 

[jalfa]

Never though of looking at it that way before. Maybe "resting" the best players more often during the season (not just the final weeks) is a good way to give the reserves/young guys more confidence and practice in game situations incase you need them. I had always just seen it as getting the big guns ready to go. This helps against the argument that resting the stars is just giving up... as it really does add other benefits.

it's one of the reasons the Spurs are going to do well in the playoffs. not only are their starters rested and ready, but their bench/rotation guys have tons of confidence because they've been playing a lot of minutes and are very much in rhythm. doesn't really apply to the Kings though, to be quite honest, as most of our stars are young talented players with a need to gel.

 

[Padrino]

meh. sports fans speak in absolutes as if sports actually function in such a way. if you are a fan of a particular team, then you should have an understanding of the bigger picture. its not always about "this game." however, it is always about "that game," ya know, the one in which your team is crowned champion of the entire league if you manage to win it. that's what every team is playing for. that's what every fan is hoping for. therefore, everything should be done in service of getting to "that game." sometimes that means resting starters so that they have fresher legs entering the playoffs, while avoiding the potential for disastrous injury in a meaningless game. other times that means enduring heaps of losses for the sake of jumpstarting a rebuild. either scenario is accompanied by its own pros and cons, but again, if the goal is to win a championship, then even the most casual fan can understand the importance of such practices. its part of the game (and, make no mistake, even though millions of dollars are constantly at stake, it really is just an expensive game). these may be gray areas, but sports are not as black and white as sports fans so desperately want to make them. and you don't attend that final game of the season if you don't understand this fact...

now, "tanking," as a philosophy, is a deplorable practice, in my opinion. however, there are ways to gracefully pursue positioning for the lottery. you develop younger talent, but not by emptying your bench in the last few weeks of the season. rather, you develop younger talent across a season as a means of moving forward. you don't ride veterans who will keep you in a low-playoff-seed or low-lottery-pick stasis, like the kings did for several years before finally trading those players away. it eventually netted them tyreke evans and demarcus cousins. but there was a little bit of luck involved in both instances. in '09, certain teams lost that provided the kings with better lottery positioning. they ended up with the worst case scenario 4th pick, and still snagged the best player in that draft. in '10, certain teams didn't lose, and provided the kings with less favorable lottery positioning. they ended up with the 5th pick in the draft, and still snagged the guy they wanted after minnesota passed on him. you can't control these factors. you can only attempt a smart and graceful rebuild. you win when you win. you lose when you lose. if you want to decrease the number of wins for draft positioning, ownership groups or management groups must often intervene on behalf of the good of the franchise, whereas a good head coach will always play to win. its not "tanking." its just how you build a winner in this league...

 

[Tyndel]

The NBA would put a better product on the floor year long and across all teams if they gave every lottery team the same % chance at lottery picks. 1-14 the 14 worst teams get the same chance at 1 then the next 13 at 2 and so on. There is no team that can't get better without the number 1 pick but alot of teams play worse then they should so they have a better chance.

The current system rewards tanking/losing too much and incompetent front offices will remain incompetent no matter the players.

 

[VF21]

The NBA would put a better product on the floor year long and across all teams if they gave every lottery team the same % chance at lottery picks. 1-14 the 14 worst teams get the same chance at 1 then the next 13 at 2 and so on. There is no team that can't get better without the number 1 pick but alot of teams play worse then they should so they have a better chance.

The current system rewards tanking/losing too much and incompetent front offices will remain incompetent no matter the players.

I do agree with most of this. I would change it, however, to something like 1-6 get the chance at the #1 pick. I don't think teams that barely miss the playoffs should be eligible.