Down with tanking, play to win!
- Thread starter dhellers
- Start date
I have a really good friend whos a Nets fan and spent the last 4 years telling me the Celts were too old, and since the trade hes been rubbing it in my face that they have KG and Pierce and we have a sizeable bet that the Nets would not be a top 2 seed in the East. Needless to say, im happy with the early season developments of that team.
But yeah, the East..woof. Its like the entire Atlantic Division outside of the Nets is trying to tank, and the Nets are playing as bad as anyone. Some pretty bad basketball going on right now.
But yeah, the East..woof. Its like the entire Atlantic Division outside of the Nets is trying to tank, and the Nets are playing as bad as anyone. Some pretty bad basketball going on right now.
Did you ask him if he knows what that players only meeting was about? Those are always a good sign
I know its way too early to think this way, but in my dream world the Celts continue to struggle as do the Nets who also have a major injury and we are looking at 2 really good picks in the draft!
I know its way too early to think this way, but in my dream world the Celts continue to struggle as do the Nets who also have a major injury and we are looking at 2 really good picks in the draft!
wutang112878 said:
As others have reminded me... we need the Hawks to suck too. It's hard to imagine them missing the playoffs with so many terrible teams in the East.
The Hawks are a pretty good team. I'm not sure how anyone ever got it into their heads that they weren't. They brought back last year's team while trading defense for offense (swapping out Smith for Millsap), while Jeff Teague has continued to improve. They may not be a title contender, but they're pretty clearly a 46-48 win team. In fact, the worst aspect of the Hawks has been Teague's play so far, otherwise they might have been the sort of team that would have been willing to trade for Rondo.
fairlee76 said:
They did just draft a PG. At the very least, I'm sure they're going to take some time to figure out what they have in him before they trade for a PG that needs to be paid shortly.
The Hawks weren't ever looking to tank. If Teague was still just above average then they might certainly have been willing to make a deal for Rondo . But Teague has taken his play up another notch so far, so they're out of the market. What Atlanta's owners want is profitable respectability (because they're selling the team).fairlee76 said:
Celtics are now 6-10. That puts them 12th in the league - right on the edge of making the playoffs.
If Rondo comes back, that makes them a better team.
Barring some key injuries or Danny finding a way to unload some parts for future value, this looks like a team with a better shot of going "one and done" in the playoffs than of finishing badly enough to have a shot at one of the top players.
It's truly a bummer that we don't have the Nets' pick THIS YEAR.
If Rondo comes back, that makes them a better team.
Barring some key injuries or Danny finding a way to unload some parts for future value, this looks like a team with a better shot of going "one and done" in the playoffs than of finishing badly enough to have a shot at one of the top players.
It's truly a bummer that we don't have the Nets' pick THIS YEAR.
Is it OK, as a fan, to be fine with any outcome at this stage? I think Danny deserves the benefit of the doubt at the point, even if we don't get a lottery pick.
I'm enjoying following the team with the mindset that this is a full-season of pre-season games - winning doesn't matter but it's ok if they do.
I'm enjoying following the team with the mindset that this is a full-season of pre-season games - winning doesn't matter but it's ok if they do.
Eddie Jurak said:
Looks to me like they are 10th right now in the East. Either way, with Rondo, they could be a borderline playoff team, though I think that's still less likely. NY, Brooklyn, and the Cavs all seem like they should be substantially better than the Celts, but they admittedly all look terrible.
I like cardiacs viewpoint on the season. At this point I'm not worried about the outcome. Wins and losses are both nice in their own way. What a season....
It's OK as a fan because as fans we have no control over the outcome. It's not OK on the part of management. They should have a plan, and the plan should include figuring out a way to scoop up some of the very best talent in the draft. Danny's intentions in this regard may have been revealed last week when he was on the radio and said, essentially, that this year's draft class is OK but not as great as people are making it out to be. So maybe he doesn't think it's worth tanking for. But if not now, when, Danny?cardiacs said:
If this was the 06/07 Celts, I have no problem with just letting the season play out and see what happens. That team had Rondo and Perk who were starting to show flashes of what they could be, Big Al who was clearly demonstrating that he could be a solid low post presence and then we knew Pierce was coming back. You could see a very interesting core that could come together and grow into something together. Or if this was the 11/12 or 12/13 Blazers, they were another young core that had some real promise.
But this young core just doesnt have the same promise. Lets compare to that 06/07 (just my standard) and lets say Rondo is of the same class as PP, I dont think Sully is in the class of Big Al, he is close but doesnt have the upside IMO. Olynyk looks good but I think he is about as talented as Perk except Perk played a physical 5 which makes him a little more important. And we dont have anyone in the class of Rondo, a wild-card prospect who if they develop could really be a game changer. I want to add to this core of young players before I just watch them grow together. I hate rooting against the Celtics but I also hate watching someone work hard at what is ultimately a futile exercise
But this young core just doesnt have the same promise. Lets compare to that 06/07 (just my standard) and lets say Rondo is of the same class as PP, I dont think Sully is in the class of Big Al, he is close but doesnt have the upside IMO. Olynyk looks good but I think he is about as talented as Perk except Perk played a physical 5 which makes him a little more important. And we dont have anyone in the class of Rondo, a wild-card prospect who if they develop could really be a game changer. I want to add to this core of young players before I just watch them grow together. I hate rooting against the Celtics but I also hate watching someone work hard at what is ultimately a futile exercise
Looks to me like they are 10th right now in the East. Either way, with Rondo, they could be a borderline playoff team, though I think that's still less likely. NY, Brooklyn, and the Cavs all seem like they should be substantially better than the Celts, but they admittedly all look terrible.
I like cardiacs viewpoint on the season. At this point I'm not worried about the outcome. Wins and losses are both nice in their own way. What a season....
i agree. I would put it this way:
Most likely: Bottom half of the lottery, probably looking at a pick in the 9-12 range.
Somewhat less likely: one and done playoff run.
Least likely: top 5 pick.
Of course, Danny could change all that if he starts making trades.
I like cardiacs viewpoint on the season. At this point I'm not worried about the outcome. Wins and losses are both nice in their own way. What a season....
i agree. I would put it this way:
Most likely: Bottom half of the lottery, probably looking at a pick in the 9-12 range.
Somewhat less likely: one and done playoff run.
Least likely: top 5 pick.
Of course, Danny could change all that if he starts making trades.
Koufax said:
Its also possible that Danny said this so that when he makes a move to tank the team he can say he has never been a big fan of this draft class.
I'm okay with the wins... but it needs to be balanced out by guys like Sullinger developing or some of our dead-weight (Wallace, Bass) increasing their trade value.
One thing I really like about Stevens is that he seems capable of putting players in a position to contribute regardless of their limitations. Just like platooning in baseball, this has the effect of producing extra wins and making guys appear more talented than they really are.
Ultimately we just need assets. I don't care where they come from.
All the pressure is on Danny to fleece another team or find a gem in the draft. He has a better chance than most of making either of those things happen.
By the way... it sure looks like the first guy to get traded is Crawford. He's putting up great numbers and is on an affordable 1 year deal, so there's no reason to hang on to him. Who needs a ball handling SG?
One thing I really like about Stevens is that he seems capable of putting players in a position to contribute regardless of their limitations. Just like platooning in baseball, this has the effect of producing extra wins and making guys appear more talented than they really are.
Ultimately we just need assets. I don't care where they come from.
All the pressure is on Danny to fleece another team or find a gem in the draft. He has a better chance than most of making either of those things happen.
By the way... it sure looks like the first guy to get traded is Crawford. He's putting up great numbers and is on an affordable 1 year deal, so there's no reason to hang on to him. Who needs a ball handling SG?
When Rondo comes back, we could be the 4th best team in the east. Hell, we could be without him.
It goes without saying that the conference is historically bad and we are not a good team as currently composed, but if we have home court advantage against a shittier team we could feasibly win a playoff series this year.
It goes without saying that the conference is historically bad and we are not a good team as currently composed, but if we have home court advantage against a shittier team we could feasibly win a playoff series this year.
Will Rondo be hesitant to run the floor or drive to the hoop? Will he be able? What about his matador defense? I don't have high hopes for a positively impactful Rondo.
It seems that a critical aspect to tanking successfully is to hire a terrible coach, because many of the teams with worse records than the Celtics have, arguably, much more talent.
Needless to say, Jason Kidd is a terrible coach. Hallelujah!
Needless to say, Jason Kidd is a terrible coach. Hallelujah!
It seems that a critical aspect to tanking successfully is to hire a terrible coach, because many of the teams with worse records than the Celtics have, arguably, much more talent.
Danny blew it on the coaching hire, then. Stevens is the opposite of terrible.
Danny blew it on the coaching hire, then. Stevens is the opposite of terrible.
If Toronto loses at Golden State tomorrow night (very likely) and the Celtics beat Milwaukee in Boston tomorrow night (pretty likely), the Celtics will be in first place in their division. At 8-12.
Edit: Celts not even ranked on the Power Tankings list.
Edit: Celts not even ranked on the Power Tankings list.
I'm not that astute an NBA fan. That said looking at this roster I have no clue how they are winning games. Is Steven's that good of a coach? I realize his calling card is taking "mid major" talent and winning, but damn. This isn't the NCAA, and admittedly the East is the definition of terrible but I really thought he'd need some actual talent before he started winning games. 8-12 is a unmitigated disaster if tanking is the goal.
He has "actual talent." IMHO folks often confuse athleticism and the ability of individual players to make plays in isolation as "talent." But knowing how to play 5 on 5 basketball is also a talent: running the offense, defensive positioning, making the right pass, taking the right shots, boxing out, etc. It's still a team game.NHbeau said:
NHbeau said:
Their defense has been above average to date, which is what's driving the total. Crawford has sufficient size to offer resistance at the 2 while Bradley still terrorizes PGs. This has been the biggest change from the last two years to this, SGs have been torturing Boston because they had one guard wiling to play D and he wasn't much use except at the 1. So Crawford has really improved their defense just by virtue of being able, and willing, to defend the SG spot. Crawford is rapidly shedding his reputation as an indifferent defender and pushing his trade value into net positive territory.
Brickowski said:
For me, it comes down to shooting. That's the most important skill in the game, and the Celtics are pretty bad at that, ranking 20th in the league in eFG%.
Yes, there are some decent teams that don't shoot that well (Minnesota, Chicago) but most of the poor shooting teams in the league are also dregs: Cleveland, Milwaukee, Utah, New York...
Yes, that's a huge factor. If this Celtics team could shoot, they'd be 12-8 instead of 8-12.Devizier said:
nighthob said:
While we internet GMs can see that Crawford has improved his game, it will be very interesting to see if that translates to real life. Methinks Crawford has such a bad reputation that he could be an All-Star and many GMs wouldn't give a bag of balls for him.
Interesting team. It would seem from afar that they don't do any one thing particularly well except compete, which is not conducive to tanking.
P.S. edit: Crawford seems to be doing well with the ball in his hand. What happens to him when Rondo comes back?
One way to short-circuit tanking: switch to a wheel system to determine draft order instead of a lottery.
I just don't understand the crusade against tanking. Henry Abbott once wrote an article (I think it was him, anyway) in which he simultaneously argued that tanking doesn't work and that the league needs to take strong measures against it. Why? If tanking doesn't magically fix your problems and teams can get good through free agency and trades, why eliminate the current system?
Throwing out everything good about the lottery to fix a phantom problem seems insane to me. I think this is a moral issue for people rather than a practical one.
Throwing out everything good about the lottery to fix a phantom problem seems insane to me. I think this is a moral issue for people rather than a practical one.
Why is tanking a "phantom problem"? The whole premise of professional sports is that you pit two teams against one another who are both trying to win; if a system rewards you for trying not to win now in the hope of winning in the future, that's surely a huge deal, isn't it?
Sadly, the promotion/relegation concept - and surely the best incentive not to tank is to be threatened with expulsion from your league - will never work in American sports for any number of reasons, but I wonder if you could apply a variation on that concept to the NBA, like this: if you are one of the bottom three teams in the league, you don't get any ping-pong balls in the lottery. Period. The worst teams draft 4th, 5th and 6th, but you have to try at least a bit to not be completely rubbish to have a chance at one of the top three picks. (Heck, I would even consider giving the ping-pong balls from those three teams to any three random teams which make the playoffs but aren't good enough to get home court advantage in the first round, so as to incentivise middling teams to always reach for the playoffs rather than fading into the lottery.)
Sadly, the promotion/relegation concept - and surely the best incentive not to tank is to be threatened with expulsion from your league - will never work in American sports for any number of reasons, but I wonder if you could apply a variation on that concept to the NBA, like this: if you are one of the bottom three teams in the league, you don't get any ping-pong balls in the lottery. Period. The worst teams draft 4th, 5th and 6th, but you have to try at least a bit to not be completely rubbish to have a chance at one of the top three picks. (Heck, I would even consider giving the ping-pong balls from those three teams to any three random teams which make the playoffs but aren't good enough to get home court advantage in the first round, so as to incentivise middling teams to always reach for the playoffs rather than fading into the lottery.)
ConigliarosPotential said:
Look at the Suns, Celtics, Sixers, etc. The front office personnel of the teams don't want to win, but the players and coaches do. As a Celtics fan you can be confident the team will play hard every game irrespective of Danny Ainge's goals for the season.
Compare that meanwhile to the Nets and Knicks. The teams with good coaching and players who play together as a team (known to the Bill Simmons' of the world as "chemistry") are overachieving and the teams with poor coaching and dysfunctional rosters are underachieving. This is exactly what it ought to be.
If people really want to make a practical change to improve the quality of play in the league, then get rid of the max contracts.
moly99 said:
Apart from the fact that I think sometimes the coaches are in on the secret and are encouraged not to do their utmost to win every game...why should we ever want anyone, especially including the front office management responsible for giving coaches the players they get to use, to not want to win? Wouldn't it be better if all 30 teams were always incentivised to assemble the strongest teams they possibly could? And perhaps more to the point, wouldn't the fan experience be better if we could always unreservedly root for our teams to win? I mean, I've been sorta kinda rooting against my favorite NFL team (the Falcons) for the past six or seven weeks precisely because I want them to get better draft picks in April, and it's a horrible feeling...and this is in a sport where, unlike the NBA, you need more than one or two excellent players to have an excellent team. Indeed, my favorite NBA team (the Hawks) is currently stuck in a cycle of mediocrity whereby many of its fans would prefer the team to suck this year instead of pursuing what currently seems to be its most likely destiny - a #3 seed in the Eastern Conference playoffs. Hopefully Brooklyn's ineptitude will ultimately make this point moot, at least as far as the Hawks and the 2014 NBA Draft are concerned, but isn't it somehow messed up for fans to have good reasons to actively want their team to do much worse than it otherwise might do?
ConigliarosPotential said:
In reality there is no way that all 30 teams can have an equal shot of making the finals, no matter what draft order system you use.
Let's say that draft pick position was determined randomly or by a wheel. The Celtics would still have traded Garnett and Pierce this offseason. They made that move not because they were trying to lose as many games as possible this year, but because they wanted the Nets picks.The front office knew they weren't going to win a championship with the core they had, so they had to go with a youth movement and build a new core that might have a shot at a ring in the future.
The factor driving rebuilding is the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and that gap will exist no matter what draft system you use. The problem the NBA has as opposed to the NFL or MLB is that it is a superstar driven league. It isn't the lottery.
This "wheel" is such a hideously terrible idea that it's terrifying it's even being suggested. The lottery system both gives bad teams hope for the future as well as aids in balancing the good free agent destination cities with teams in places superstars are less inclined to sign in.
Think people hate the WWE-ification of the NBA now? Keep the current free agent/contract/salary cap system and then make it possible for the champs to have the number 1 pick through no wheeling and dealing or managerial skill of their own. Incredibly simple way to make the sport a laughingstock.
Think people hate the WWE-ification of the NBA now? Keep the current free agent/contract/salary cap system and then make it possible for the champs to have the number 1 pick through no wheeling and dealing or managerial skill of their own. Incredibly simple way to make the sport a laughingstock.
Jungleland said:
Exactly. Teams don't have equal ability to sign free agents. "Tanking" is a natural defense for the small markets.
A major problem with the wheel idea is that basically all top draft choice have multiple seasons when they could enter the draft. If you're the best freshman in college, Milwaukee's picking first this year, and L.A.'s picking first next year, is it worth spending another year on campus to get to spend your career in L.A.? This effect already exists with free agents, but with a predictable draft order, you'd be making it even harder for teams in undesirable markets to acquire talent.
ConigliarosPotential said:
That is an excellent idea and would really resolve the issue of tanking. But it could incentive teams in weird ways. The worst team would automatically get the 4th pick. The 4th worst team would get in the lottery and if they don't win would get 7th. There are situations where the worst team and its guaranteed 4th pick would be preferable.
I feel someone has mentioned this here previously, but there's a very simple solution this problem: make all players draft eligible after one year in college, and if they decide not to go pro, the team that drafted them retains their rights. That way the draft pool is set in stone, and there's no way players can wiggle around it to try and go to a specific team. Problem solved.CSteinhardt said: