Around the League: Week 19 2/19-2/25

[Furlanfufi]

yes, ss, everyone, including the player's are aware of all the many obvious ways that teams tank.
it's nice that you want to get all George Washington about it and bring tanking out in the open
but it's a whole bunch of illusions that keeps us watching the bouncing ball

Totally ridiculous

I'm with Sauce on this subject. You can do everything to throw away games and get a better pick, but you can't be honest about it?
Cmon...

[Split T]

No that's the point, you can't do everything to throw away games. You can play younger guys and rest your vets (I'm still not thrilled we benched bled/Knight last year. Also not sure benching Knight helped us tank) but Cubans comments implied he was fine with his players not trying to win. You can't have players purposefully losing on the court.

[1tinsoldier]

No that's the point, you can't do everything to throw away games.

you're on it

but you can't be honest about it? Cmon...

correct. when your wife asks if this dress makes my ass look fat and it does, say it doesn't or you're both in for a world of hurt

[Cap]

It’s ridiculous the way they keep rejiggering the weights in the lottery, as if they think they can find the magical weighting formula that fixes the problem. : facepalm:

[1tinsoldier]

Let's play nice, folks. 1tin, I think sauce's posts about tanking were just fine, and you could have made your point in a more respectful way.

yes, his post was fine. yes, it would have been more respectful if i left George Washington out of it. i was just trying to keep things interesting, but am perhaps just wasting time. sorry.

[In2ition]

It’s ridiculous the way they keep rejiggering the weights in the lottery, as if they think they can find the magical weighting formula that fixes the problem. : facepalm:

It bothers me that the system is based on luck. Some teams or people are clearly luckier than others.

[O_Gardino]

It’s ridiculous the way they keep rejiggering the weights in the lottery, as if they think they can find the magical weighting formula that fixes the problem. : facepalm:

Here's the formula: Your team has to win 160 games in every 5 year span, or the owner has to sell.

[O_Gardino]

yes, ss, everyone, including the player's are aware of all the many obvious ways that teams tank.
it's nice that you want to get all George Washington about it and bring tanking out in the open
but it's a whole bunch of illusions that keeps us watching the bouncing ball

Totally ridiculous

I'm with Sauce on this subject. You can do everything to throw away games and get a better pick, but you can't be honest about it?
Cmon...

Imagine that your boss said to you, "Hey, I know you've been doing your best. But you aren't good enough for me and you never will be. I want you to intentionally and publicly do even worse at your job, so that I can get a better replacement for you in the spring."

As an NBA owner, he has the responsibility to put his players in the best possible position to succeed, not to sabotage their careers by asking them to be bad at basketball.

[Hermen]

yes, ss, everyone, including the player's are aware of all the many obvious ways that teams tank.
it's nice that you want to get all George Washington about it and bring tanking out in the open
but it's a whole bunch of illusions that keeps us watching the bouncing ball

Totally ridiculous

I'm with Sauce on this subject. You can do everything to throw away games and get a better pick, but you can't be honest about it?
Cmon...

Imagine that your boss said to you, "Hey, I know you've been doing your best. But you aren't good enough for me and you never will be. I want you to intentionally and publicly do even worse at your job, so that I can get a better replacement for you in the spring."

As an NBA owner, he has the responsibility to put his players in the best possible position to succeed, not to sabotage their careers by asking them to be bad at basketball.

Whatever the owner says, players won't "intentionally" play worse - it's their career on the line. It does affect morale though, which probably leads to worse performance. But I'm not convinced it's any worse than sitting players that play too well.

[specialsauce]

yes, ss, everyone, including the player's are aware of all the many obvious ways that teams tank.
it's nice that you want to get all George Washington about it and bring tanking out in the open
but it's a whole bunch of illusions that keeps us watching the bouncing ball

Totally ridiculous

I'm with Sauce on this subject. You can do everything to throw away games and get a better pick, but you can't be honest about it?
Cmon...

Imagine that your boss said to you, "Hey, I know you've been doing your best. But you aren't good enough for me and you never will be. I want you to intentionally and publicly do even worse at your job, so that I can get a better replacement for you in the spring."

As an NBA owner, he has the responsibility to put his players in the best possible position to succeed, not to sabotage their careers by asking them to be bad at basketball.

To me it’s way worse to sit your best player in the midst of the best statistical season of his career as healthy strategic resting in hopes of improving your draft position to acquire his replacement (Ball). At least they are honest with their intentions in your scenario

[O_Gardino]

yes, ss, everyone, including the player's are aware of all the many obvious ways that teams tank.
it's nice that you want to get all George Washington about it and bring tanking out in the open
but it's a whole bunch of illusions that keeps us watching the bouncing ball

Totally ridiculous

I'm with Sauce on this subject. You can do everything to throw away games and get a better pick, but you can't be honest about it?
Cmon...

Imagine that your boss said to you, "Hey, I know you've been doing your best. But you aren't good enough for me and you never will be. I want you to intentionally and publicly do even worse at your job, so that I can get a better replacement for you in the spring."

As an NBA owner, he has the responsibility to put his players in the best possible position to succeed, not to sabotage their careers by asking them to be bad at basketball.

To me it’s way worse to sit your best player in the midst of the best statistical season of his career as healthy strategic resting in hopes of improving your draft position to acquire his replacement (Ball). At least they are honest with their intentions in your scenario

Both are awfull.

[Mori Chu]

To me, trading away players and/or emphasizing young players is more like "Iron Chef." Here, chef, make something delicious (a win) with only these few ingredients (players). The chef is still trying his/her darnedest to make a great meal, they just have some constraints on them. And often, on Iron Chef and other cooking shows, they still find ways to make something good and interesting despite the constraints before them.

But actively walking in and telling the players, "We want to lose," is quite different. That's telling the chef, "I actually want you to cook a bad meal today. Can you do that?" That means the chef actually doesn't want to try to make something great, regardless of the ingredients. That is worse.

It isn't just that Cuban said out loud something you are supposed to think quietly in your head. It's that he actually told the chef he doesn't want a good meal, that he wants them to try to cook something bad.

[EternalChampion]

To me, trading away players and/or emphasizing young players is more like "Iron Chef." Here, chef, make something delicious (a win) with only these few ingredients (players). The chef is still trying his/her darnedest to make a great meal, they just have some constraints on them. And often, on Iron Chef and other cooking shows, they still find ways to make something good and interesting despite the constraints before them.

But actively walking in and telling the players, "We want to lose," is quite different. That's telling the chef, "I actually want you to cook a bad meal today. Can you do that?" That means the chef actually doesn't want to try to make something great, regardless of the ingredients. That is worse.

It isn't just that Cuban said out loud something you are supposed to think quietly in your head. It's that he actually told the chef he doesn't want a good meal, that he wants them to try to cook something bad.

Agreed. Also, the door is always slightly open to the possibility of game fixing and point shaving but encouraging the players (or the coaches) to lose on purpose just blows that door off its hinges. That's a scandal the NBA can ill afford.

[Indy]

To me, trading away players and/or emphasizing young players is more like "Iron Chef." Here, chef, make something delicious (a win) with only these few ingredients (players). The chef is still trying his/her darnedest to make a great meal, they just have some constraints on them. And often, on Iron Chef and other cooking shows, they still find ways to make something good and interesting despite the constraints before them.

But actively walking in and telling the players, "We want to lose," is quite different. That's telling the chef, "I actually want you to cook a bad meal today. Can you do that?" That means the chef actually doesn't want to try to make something great, regardless of the ingredients. That is worse.

It isn't just that Cuban said out loud something you are supposed to think quietly in your head. It's that he actually told the chef he doesn't want a good meal, that he wants them to try to cook something bad.

But the rules are set up in a way where it is better for your business to lose big than be mediocre. Punishing people for using the rules to their advantage is disingenuous and places blame on others instead of you taking responsibility for your system. Grow a pair, mix it up, and find a way to discourage coming in as a bottom 3-5 team. Reward teams that are middle of the pack instead of dead last, so teams are fighting to at least be average.

[EternalChampion]

Grow a pair, mix it up, and find a way to discourage coming in as a bottom 3-5 team. Reward teams that are middle of the pack instead of dead last, so teams are fighting to at least be average.

I think the league should be using money to solve this situation. Put an end to the lottery, just use reverse order of finish like it used to be. Also, take a percentage of the TV money and apportion it based on final standings. All playoff teams get an equal share while each team that misses out on the postseason gets a decreasingly smaller share based on finish. IOW, the team that finishes just out of the playoffs receives a significantly larger share than the team that finishes dead last.

[O_Gardino]

To me, trading away players and/or emphasizing young players is more like "Iron Chef." Here, chef, make something delicious (a win) with only these few ingredients (players). The chef is still trying his/her darnedest to make a great meal, they just have some constraints on them. And often, on Iron Chef and other cooking shows, they still find ways to make something good and interesting despite the constraints before them.

But actively walking in and telling the players, "We want to lose," is quite different. That's telling the chef, "I actually want you to cook a bad meal today. Can you do that?" That means the chef actually doesn't want to try to make something great, regardless of the ingredients. That is worse.

It isn't just that Cuban said out loud something you are supposed to think quietly in your head. It's that he actually told the chef he doesn't want a good meal, that he wants them to try to cook something bad.

But the rules are set up in a way where it is better for your business to lose big than be mediocre. Punishing people for using the rules to their advantage is disingenuous and places blame on others instead of you taking responsibility for your system. Grow a pair, mix it up, and find a way to discourage coming in as a bottom 3-5 team. Reward teams that are middle of the pack instead of dead last, so teams are fighting to at least be average.

I'll say it again: it starts with ownership. Owners should be accountable to win 160 games in every 5 year span, or they have to sell the team. That solves the problem of tanking, and the problem of long term bad ownership.

[Split T]

Here's my solution:

Add two teams and make 4 8 team divisions. You rotate each year which division gets which set of picks, so every 4 years you're guaranteed one pick between 1-8, one between 9-16, one between 17-24, and one between 25-32. Within the division you hand out the picks based on record.

So in a hypothetical Pacific division with GS, LAC, LAL, Sac, PHX, por, Utah, and den. GS would pick 8th, Denver 7th, Portland 6th, clippers 5th, jazz 4th, Lakers 3rd, Kings 2nd, and Suns 1st.

Next year our division would have picks 25-32. This incorporates the wheel system without letting teams like the warriors get the 1st overall pick. You could still get some tanking( this year it would be limited to Suns and Kings tanking over picking 1st vs 2nd. Unless you think teams like the Hawks and magic would tank over who gets 17th or 18th)

The only time I think you'd actually see tanking is if there are more terrible teams in the 1-8 division than there are players in the top tier. In this scenario there would have to be a clearly defined top tier of player(s) Like LeBron in 04, Durant/Oden in 07, Davis in 12, Simmons/Ingram in 16.

Without a clearly defined top tier in this draft, I don't think you'd see us or Sacramento tank. We'd both be just fine picking 1st or 2nd. Even if the Lakers had their own pick, I think all 3 teams would be fine picking anywhere in the top 3.

[O_Gardino]

The Ringer has some second half predictions up:

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/2/21 ... redictions

Which team will “win” the tank race?

Gonzalez: As our resident tank enthusiast, I object to the nakedly pejorative use of quotations around the word “win.” That said, I’ll take the Suns. They have a bunch of young players who may or may not be good and who figure to get a lot of run over the final quarter of the season. That usually translates to lots of losses. Also, as losing goes, Phoenix has gotten really good at being really bad in these past couple of seasons. Right now, the organization is figuring out whether it’s allowed to bench Eric Bledsoe via long-distance remote.

[Cap]

To me, trading away players and/or emphasizing young players is more like "Iron Chef." Here, chef, make something delicious (a win) with only these few ingredients (players). The chef is still trying his/her darnedest to make a great meal, they just have some constraints on them. And often, on Iron Chef and other cooking shows, they still find ways to make something good and interesting despite the constraints before them.

But actively walking in and telling the players, "We want to lose," is quite different. That's telling the chef, "I actually want you to cook a bad meal today. Can you do that?" That means the chef actually doesn't want to try to make something great, regardless of the ingredients. That is worse.

It isn't just that Cuban said out loud something you are supposed to think quietly in your head. It's that he actually told the chef he doesn't want a good meal, that he wants them to try to cook something bad.

But the rules are set up in a way where it is better for your business to lose big than be mediocre. Punishing people for using the rules to their advantage is disingenuous and places blame on others instead of you taking responsibility for your system. Grow a pair, mix it up, and find a way to discourage coming in as a bottom 3-5 team. Reward teams that are middle of the pack instead of dead last, so teams are fighting to at least be average.

That was actually the original lottery system. When the Knicks won after barely missing the playoffs, they decided to weight it. Then Orlando won after barely missing the playoffs and they decided to weight it more heavily. Now we're moving back toward weighting it less heavily.

[Indy]

To me, trading away players and/or emphasizing young players is more like "Iron Chef." Here, chef, make something delicious (a win) with only these few ingredients (players). The chef is still trying his/her darnedest to make a great meal, they just have some constraints on them. And often, on Iron Chef and other cooking shows, they still find ways to make something good and interesting despite the constraints before them.

But actively walking in and telling the players, "We want to lose," is quite different. That's telling the chef, "I actually want you to cook a bad meal today. Can you do that?" That means the chef actually doesn't want to try to make something great, regardless of the ingredients. That is worse.

It isn't just that Cuban said out loud something you are supposed to think quietly in your head. It's that he actually told the chef he doesn't want a good meal, that he wants them to try to cook something bad.

But the rules are set up in a way where it is better for your business to lose big than be mediocre. Punishing people for using the rules to their advantage is disingenuous and places blame on others instead of you taking responsibility for your system. Grow a pair, mix it up, and find a way to discourage coming in as a bottom 3-5 team. Reward teams that are middle of the pack instead of dead last, so teams are fighting to at least be average.

I'll say it again: it starts with ownership. Owners should be accountable to win 160 games in every 5 year span, or they have to sell the team. That solves the problem of tanking, and the problem of long term bad ownership.

But the league is run by the owners, not the commissioner. He works for them. So I don't think you will get a majority of white billionaires to tell each other they have to leave the club. Especially because being forced to sell depresses the market, and drives down valuations for the other teams.