No tanking. However, now that the Rockets are eliminated from playoff contention, it certainly makes sense to rest some guys who were playing injured and put the youngsters out there to see what they can do. But no matter who is playing, everyone who is on the court should be giving 100% at all times.
Just how do you tank?? Dont play starters?? Get leads in games and then sit starters?? Put everybody on IR? Geniuses allways throw out the "tank" word but dont really explain just how you do it in this day and age
Agreed on all points. And to those who think losing more games and getting a (somewhat) better pick will somehow outweigh the benefits of winning, I have the following statistic: 26-56. That is the record the Rockets would have needed to have "tanked" for in order to assure itself of the #6 pick in the 2010 NBA Draft. And assuming that the top 5 teams would not trade their picks in a reasonable deal (which was true, especially since many GMs acknowledged that this draft was only 5 deep of All-Star caliber players), then the Rockets would have ended up selecting . . . PATRICK PATTERSON, PF, Kentucky. 26 wins. All to get a guy the Rockets ended up getting anyway. Frankly, I'd rather have those extra 16 wins they got last season. The fact is, the 2011 NBA Draft isn't even as good as last year's. The Rockets could have lost 10 more games and STILL not gotten a player the caliber of Patterson. Is it really worth it to lose those games??? We're not talking about getting a top-5 pick. That was never a realistic possibility, no matter what people here think. This team was simply too good--and other teams simply too horrible--for the Rockets to end up with a pick any better than, say, #11 or #12. I'll take the wins instead. But maybe that's just me.
Exactly. Imagine if you just landed a contract with an NBA team after putting in hard work in the NBDL. I can't imagine the player in this scenario playing terribly on purpose, just so his team can "tank." If a team does tank, it has to be all on the coach (not playing starters, benching players who are having a good game, etc.). I just can't see individual players intentionally making their individual stats worse.
In that case, though, they would have a better than 50% chance of getting one of the top 5 picks, no? Still, I would rather have the wins, given that the wins elevate the value of all rotation players and the lotto only elevates the value of one pick. Sometimes that one pick can outweigh everthing, but this year doesn't appear to be the year according to all of the professional draft watchers-- there's not a Tim Duncan walking through that door there.
I have to point out that in Yao's draft we won the ping pong balls for the 1st pick (and actually also the 2nd pick lol) with the 5th worst record. But ya, tanking is dumb.
Yes, because having a lousy record ensures a brighter future? How so? A better pick? No need, didn't we just get a high draft pick in Thabeet? See problem solved. There is no certainty in the draft. On top of that why would you tank in order to get it? Like other's have stated it's a good way to ruin chemistry. I know I wouldn't want to suit up for a team that was trying to lose.
That's BS. I, and others, have repeatedly explained that tanking is nothing more than trading your vets and playing the youngsters. That's it, nothing more. And even if the 2011 draft is weak, a top three pick would have tremendous trade value.
So you are saying that other teams will be willing to give "tremendous value" for a top 3 pick even if they know the draft is weak and the talent available at the top 3 isn't exactly Tim Duncan or even DeMarcus Cousins? I'm pretty sure the market value of each pick depends on the perceived talent of the player actually available at that spot.
Why does everyone assume that players develop most from being in a game 24 minutes a game? People should be getting better and work on their strength, conditioning, moves, shots, range, post moves, team playstyle, positioning, offensive flow, team defense, etc. through practice. You get on the court because you're ready to contribute. What really needs to change is how the NBA favors the team with worse records in the lottery. I get trying to balance teams, but when teams start to tank when they have potential to fight for playoff spots is ridiculous. It affects the league's integrity as well as teams that are trying to make the playoffs. Teams "developing younger players" and completely ignoring the veteran players that could've helped win a few more games makes or breaks the season for a few teams. It affects playoff seedings and in some cases, determined which teams make the playoffs. I think once your young players are showing that they can hold their own and that they're not a liability on the court, then they should play. There's a developmental league for younger players in order to develop them. It really makes no sense to try to give up games to win lottery balls and draft positioning. It then came down to whoever is in the cusp of the playoffs and if they are playing one of those teams to end the season to determine whether they have a real shot or not.
Of course not. Ridiculous question. Any fan with any brains at all can see this. Even if you lacked pride enough to rationalize tanking, the very small dividends that tanking would yield wouldn't have helped the team as much as what they gained, in terms of confidence and learning to play as a team, from their winning run.
I doubt that was the Rockets "goal," to just be good enough to put butts in a stadium. I'm pretty sure the only goal is championship, but due to tied-up money here or there, and tied-up talent here or there, and a lack of desire for players to play here alongside a constantly injured All-Star, yeh that isnt really a realistic option... goal or not. How long now have the Clippers had a bright future btw? 'cause they've sucked pretty much as long as I've been alive, mediocre, bad, real bad, and unlucky. New York is one of the biggest markets ever, and they dont even have a handful of championships. Utah? good-to-great team for what, almost 15-20 years? no championship. 90s Suns/Sonics/Pacers couldnt win trophies. No one could really beat 2 teams (Lakers, Spurs) for the last decade for a title. Success, winning, championships, nothing is ever a sure thing no matter how much talent and money is behind it. Tanking is ridiculous, its such an insanely small % chance that tanking and luck would bring up the circumstances to build a championship caliber team from getting "one guy" anyways. I see the logic in the idea, but I think the reality surrounding that logic is so narrow that its not even worth seriously exploring. You could draft the greatest potential in history, and he may rot on your bench for years because of a bad knee or something.
You should coach the team. Keep in mind that I'm not actually in favor of tanking at all. Wanted to hear opinions from everybody who might have changed their minds.
Draft picks in this draft have **** for value, we've already seen how much the Clippers lotto pick was worth, CAP RELIEF LOL. Anyway, we have one of the younger teams in the league and our guys are still improving. You can't rebuild something that isn't but yet.
Yeah we should have tanked like Utah did after the ASB this year. Then we would have gotten the 9 pick like they're set up to do this year. And then with that 9 pick we could have gotten a much better player than the 14 pick we have now. Just like last year when we had to settle for Patrick Patterson because Utah already nabbed a MUCH better player at 9 in... Oh crap. I take back EVERYTHING I JUST SAID.
