Of course! The goal is to win a championship, not merely the next basketball game. In this context, Canoner is right: it is quite possible to win the next battle and lose the war. For example, Napoleon won practically every battle in his march to Moscow, but six months later his war was lost, his army demolished by frostbite, starvation, and disease, and his empire shattered. In his rush to take the capital of Russia, Napoleon wore out his troops, failed to adequately plan for the incredibly harsh Russian winter, and neglected his logistics. I'm sure you can see the analogy. JVG wanted to win the meaningless games; he wore out the foot of his main man, and he failed to plan for the future. If Yao's broken foot never heals properly, or if our worsened draft position resulted in a bust of a player, we may have to kiss our championship hopes goodbye. By focusing purely on the short-term tactical victories, JVG could lose his long-term, strategic goal, just as Napoleon lost his.
Originally posted by Red Glare: A war is not won by the total number of victorious battles, it is won by achieving your social, economic, or political goals. -------------------------------------------------------------- Sure, that's why critical battles must be won, and battles of lesser importance, or not important at all don't have to be won. The regular season games after playoff elimination are just like the unimportant battles. That's why basketball has similarities to wars. Likewise, the NBA basketball is not won by the total number of vitorious battles, it is won by achieving championship by winning the CRITICAL games. Preseason games are part of the NBA schedule, but such victorious battles has no bearing on the outcome of our basketball war. The regular season games after playoff elimination is worse than preseason games in its importance, for not only it has no bearing on the outcome of championship, there's no warming up needed at this stage. It's not wise waste resources to win such meaningless and unimportance battles.
The Spurs have stayed dominant in part because they drafted Manu Ginobili with a 57th pick and Tony Parker with a 28th pick. Why does that part always get left out? Every NBA champion from recent years has had great picks late in the draft that were ignored by the people above them. Great franchises do great things with what they are given, even if they don't figure out a way to lose enough games to wind up with a higher pick. Those two picks are better than quite a few top 10 picks over the past 10 years ... Your reference to Hakeem only proves the point. It's debatable whether Houston tanked, but let's assume arguendo that they did. Hmm, let's see ... so the Bulls "blew it" by not losing enough games and being stuck with Michael Jordan at #3, right? If the Rockets hadn't tanked and ended up with Michael Jordan, do you think we would've had LESS THAN two titles? When I was yelling like a madman in Game 7 of the first Finals, my Chicagoan friend who was watching with me was amused and remarked something like, "sheesh, is this what it's like when you've never won a championship?" It got boring for them. I supposed we spared ourselves that boredom by tanking harder than they did? Sometimes it's better to always think and play like winners and let the chips fall where they may. Fate, karma, God, or whatever it is that you think it is that creates irony in sports - it all works out for the best. Just ask any Bulls fans who grew up watching basketball in the 90s.
Red Glare - have really enjoyed your posts. I have been troubled by the many posts that are so quick to dismiss pride or honor as being irrelevant to the question. I have this theory that maybe it's generational, or possibly a difference between people who play sports (and have had success) and people who mostly watch. Or maybe being in a line of work where having a code of conduct means something. A good friend of mine is a Major who's in Iraq now, and he has been successful at everything he's ever done - he's a competitive guy, a serial winner at sports and academics, and at all times, the thought of ever casting honor aside would be unthinkable ... whether as a soldier, athlete, or yes, even as a fan. I know he thinks very much like you do. Maybe there's no correlation between service and one's attitude towards this particular issue as a fan, but let's just say I like what I've been reading from you.
So ... did it occur to anyone else that ... well, maybe if the Rockets had tanked a little harder as so many people wanted, THEY might've drafted Mario Williams to play power forward? Anyone who rooted for the Texans to lose against the 49ers is probably pretty upset about the Williams pick. As they say, be careful what you wish for ...
They were quite dominant with TD and Drob, before Parker and Manu were drafted. They just got better with these additions. But the cornerstone of their club, TD, was acquired by tanking a season. Red has a problem with such "disingenuous" acts even if it gets you multiple championships.
Yeah I'm sure your friend never violated traffic laws on purpose and never told any lies. And why people insist putting honor on winning garbage games with no prizes?! Do you guys think if the Rockets lost a few preseason games on purpose, then they have no honor? no pride? no winner mentality? Get real. Not to mention, regular season games after playoff elimination have lesser importance than preseason games. It seems misplaced sense of honor is the biggest straw anti-tanking fans are clinging on.
Honor is a more difficult concept than you may think. What does your friend the Major think of missions at night? Is it honorable to shoot an enemy in the back because he can't see you in the dark, but you can see him because of your night vision goggles? Is it honorable to drop a cluster bomb on a city block full of enemies -- and maybe kill a lot of women and children too? What about the usual deceptions -- the feints and the disinformation -- that are part of every military campaign since before Alexander (and I don't mean Les): are they honorable? Some people would say yes, and some would say no. My intent here is not to judge, but to say that honor is not at all a simple concept. Is it honorable to go all out to win a meaningless basketball game? Or would it be more honorable to plan for the future?
Ditto man ditto! I completely agree with you on all fronts. When I started reading threads discussing losing every game left I thought I was on the wrong forum. This is professional basketball not Nba 2K6 on Xbox 360. You NEVER play to lose. And to all who suggested it aren't true fans but merely fans and there my friends is a big difference. I actually showed Skip(Queens connection) a thread on my Sidekick and all he asked me was "is this is our fans' site? Ouch!" And to comment on Kobe... I never thought I would see a player even come close to Jordan's intensity and desire and with Kobe its there... And its scary watching him get better and better... Every so called expert had the Lakers winning under 20 games and look at them now... 45 wins... BECAUSE OF KOBE. "Hate that..."
Your point is well taken. You are right that honor is a complicated issue, and not at all a simple concept. And it means different things to different people. I just don't like it when people say it doesn't matter. So if the point is that honor does matter, and that you can lose with honor, pride, and dignity, that bothers me less than saying stuff like none of that stuff matters. I don't even know if honor is the best word, because it certainly means a different thing in sports than it does in really important things like family and war, and it's probably not good to end up conflating those arenas. I do think it's honorable to win a meaningless basketball game, for the players who played. Maybe not for the fans, but for whoever set foot on the court, I think there is honor in their effort.
I know for a fact that he has driven above the speed limit many times. But that's a straw man argument I think - so if that's your definition of honor, then I must admit that I don't know any people who would be honorable in your book, whether soldier or civilian. But you're right that honor alone maybe isn't the best "straw" as you put it. I'd say this - there are some people who just always play to win at whatever they do, and to think about losing in order to win just doesn't fit with their personally competitive attitude and the way they approach things. My buddy is like that. (He is admittedly a little extreme for me at times - he can get so intense watching playoff games with Houston teams that he has turned the TV off on me before because he got too wound up to watch.) So they don't get how you perceive the world, and you don't get how they perceive the world. At the end of the day we're all fellow fans who want to win championships, but there's just a difference of opinion on the best means to that end. This reminds me a bit of the debates over whether you should tank games in order to avoid a particular first round opponent. Anyone who is of the always-play-to-win camp would likely say no. I suspect some in the tank-meaningless-games camp would say yes. But some who say you should tank games when you're out of the playoffs might say you should not tank games to avoid an undesirable first round matchup, because you can't recover quickly enough to get the winning mindset in time for the actual playoffs, right? I think the anti-tank camp believes, on some level, that there is a macro level concern with losing games now and recovering that winning mindset as an organization, later. Especially if you're talking about a situation where a player gets benched for playing too well in a meaningless game that we want to lose - just sends a bad message to the entire squad. Besides, tanking isn't even always effective as far as fans are concerned. Reggie Bush was supposed to the big prize that half a dozen teams ought to tank for, and what happened there?
Actually, thinking about this - tanking is less like breaking a traffic law and more like pretending you don't know which lane to be in, and then waiting until the last minute to cut in line ahead of others who have been waiting to get into a crowded parking lot. Perfectly lawful, lots of people do it, but, well, nobody particularly feels proud of themselves when they do it because it's just not that cool (or honorable? ), right? But if everyone else is doing it, it makes one more likely to do it (and feel more okay about it) than if everybody weren't doing it, yes?
Your example makes it sound like we are taking advantage of other teams. It's like saying we don't deserve the #6 and another team deserve it. Worthy or not, it's a subjective judgement. I feel a team devastated by injuries, with shadows on two franchise players, T-Mac's back and Yao's foot, and depleted of quality role players, with no capspace and little trade assets should gain spots to improve the team. With no improvement, it's dangerous for a team like the Rockets to be stuck in mediocrity, not high enough to win a ring, not low enough to win a high pick and draft a high impact player, while lacking resources to improve. My question still remains, is tanking preseason games dishonorable? Charles Barkley never take preseason games seriously, does it make him a dishonorable person? Is honor relevant in this case? or in the case of tanking meaningless and harmful(depleting our draft resources) regular season games? Everything should be taken into context. The same thing applies to honor as well.
Actually, I'm not that high on losing games to avoid a particular opponents. I believe in my team and I like to root for underdogs. Tanking though, is different in that it's clear cut we've lost the season for sure. It's time to give up. I'd like to think that the difference between the two groups is not about always wanting to win or not, because it's false to say we the tankers don't want to always win. The difference is between wanting to win big or win small. We tank to get a better player to win it big. The anti-tankers want trivial but instant gratification rather than more hope to the future. In order to win it big, it's wise to choose a path. I recommend that, choose the path that doesn't waste our limited resources by taking meaningless detours. It's also about team building philosophy, the anti-tankers think it's corrosive to team spirits to lose. While the opposite thinks it's Ok, because in principle, losing with a strategy goal in mind is not corrosive, but an acceptable practice. It's the same as the basic military strategy, lose a battle on purpose, show your weakness, retreat, and lure the enemies to chase into a trap. Also, in practice, teams have tanked big and gain big reward with no sign of the proverbial "loser mentality" the anti-tankers like to perpetuate. In conclusion, the anti-tankers lack support on this front. Let me give you an hypothetical example. In the Olympic games, runner X is lucky to make it to the 10000 meters running. Despite his efforts he found out he still have 5 laps to go while half the opponents already arrived at the ending point. There's no hope for even a bronze medal. There's still runners close to runner X though. A special rule kicks in at this point. For the still running losers including runner X, every spot he gains in the final standing means a deduction in the prizes, and such prizes can influence how much he can advance in the future Olympic games. It's not OK to drop out of the race either. Now X faces a dilemma, if he chooses to go all out, he's likely to gain a higher standing, at the penalty of losing resources. If he chooses to lag behind, he'd be blasted by people as being dishonorable. What does he do, to plan for the future and try win it big next time since he's already lost this time, or to avoid being criticized? that is, to be smart or to save face? I f I was runner X, I'd say screw the critics, the rules reward lagging behind, and I'd rather be smart other than sacrificing future to please some fans, and yeah, there's a lot of fans on my side too.
Well articulated. I know there are plenty of fans with your view, and I understand it and think reasonable people can disagree. Let me just pose this angle on your Olympics example. I submit that the type of athlete that would win gold in such a competitive field couldn't help but go all-out in finishing race even if he were out of it, while the type of athlete who will always fall short of potential is the athlete who will take the "smart" route as you put it. The athlete who goes all out isn't doing it to please the fans or anyone else, but because it's in his DNA ... it's just who he is and how he is, at all times. Here is a perfect example from draft day follow ups: __________ As a receiver, Davis impresses after making the catch and exhibits the same determination as one of his idols -- former 49ers and current Cowboys receiver Terrell Owens. In fact, Davis was told by coaches at Maryland to quit struggling for extra yardage because they didn't want him getting injured. "I told him, 'Coach, I can't go down, that's something I just can't change,' '' Davis said. __________ The coaches wanted him to tank the play for good reasons, and they are reasonable people, though I doubt they would criticize him for his competitive fire. When all is said and done, this is the guy that inspires the anti-tanker fan the most, even if he's not playing "smarter" by refusing to go down. The pro-tanker might respect his drive, but at the same time be more critical because he's not thinking about winning big. As you suggested, it would be smarter for him to go down on the play, just like it would be smarter for the Olympic athlete to give up and save his energy for another race. At the end of the day, I think maybe the anti-tanker just relates to a guy like this in a way that the pro-tanker doesn't.
