The Official 2017 Tanking Thread

[RamonSessions7]

#3 has gotten the top pick in the lottery more times than the #1 going in I think. Maybe that was our strategy. Advanced metrics and whatnot.

[BEazy]

So glad the percentages are set in stone. No more worrying about Ls.

[danfantastk32]

That's all well and good. I actually feel you, but what if that wasn't working? What if World Peace, Nwaba, Black, Robinson, and Brewer were having a good night? What do you do if Brewer catches fire? Bring Clarkson back in, but tell him to not play any defense?

Here's my answer to that from above:"If Tarik Black, Ennis, Metta and D-league players pull off a win....then you did what you could." In other words....I don't expect Godliness. Sometimes it happens, and you gotta live with it. Just like we might have ended last, but still lost the pick. The point is....you put yourself in the best position possible, and came up short. That's life. But if we lose the pick, and we all know that we played our 'core' north of 30 minutes per game the last 10 games....well that just hurts.

What's your line? What would you not do? You said you wouldn't make guys shoot left handed (that was a joke, by the way -- just an example of something that would certainly accomplish the end), but what else would you not do?

I answered that too: "I would not ask players to "throw the game". A way to look it for me, is basically like how the 4th quarter goes when the game is a blowout (football does this)....you pull Lebron, and Irving...and let your back-bench get to work on sets in a "real life game". Again...I'm gonna go back to this same line of reasoning. You DON'T play your best players north of 30 minutes. If they have a real issue with what your doing, then you make up an ailment and sit them the last 7-8 games of the year.

I mean look.....It was beyond obvious that Kerr gave a rats-arse if they won tonight, right? He rested Green...sat all the starters the 4th, and gave the deep bench some run. It was a totally meaningless game that the outcome had no consequences, and you can bet your bottom dollar that NOBODY on that team took offense, or is in any way angered/damaged that Kerr tossed that game out. Right?

Well that was us...only for 10 games. In fact there was something possibly great to come from LOSING. So I just don't see/agree with the "ruin the locker room" theory. If this team lost when it had something to play for.....now THAT would definitely be bad.

[danfantastk32]

So glad the percentages are set in stone. No more worrying about Ls.

Yup. I agree.

I think we really went about this poorly at the end. It's like those couples who go badly into debt, and then they just kinda turn off reality, and go max out cards...until it bottoms out. It's like if you pretend you don't see the consequences...they won't actually happen.

But it is what it is now.

Either way....alot has to be done with this team, and Magic/Rob need to get super creative, and frankly kinda lucky this offseason. Here's to hoping the squad shows up for preseason improved and ready to rock.

[ALL HAIL]

That's all well and good. I actually feel you, but what if that wasn't working? What if World Peace, Nwaba, Black, Robinson, and Brewer were having a good night? What do you do if Brewer catches fire? Bring Clarkson back in, but tell him to not play any defense?

Here's my answer to that from above:"If Tarik Black, Ennis, Metta and D-league players pull off a win....then you did what you could." In other words....I don't expect Godliness. Sometimes it happens, and you gotta live with it. Just like we might have ended last, but still lost the pick. The point is....you put yourself in the best position possible, and came up short. That's life. But if we lose the pick, and we all know that we played our 'core' north of 30 minutes per game the last 10 games....well that just hurts.

What's your line? What would you not do? You said you wouldn't make guys shoot left handed (that was a joke, by the way -- just an example of something that would certainly accomplish the end), but what else would you not do?

I answered that too: "I would not ask players to "throw the game". A way to look it for me, is basically like how the 4th quarter goes when the game is a blowout (football does this)....you pull Lebron, and Irving...and let your back-bench get to work on sets in a "real life game". Again...I'm gonna go back to this same line of reasoning. You DON'T play your best players north of 30 minutes. If they have a real issue with what your doing, then you make up an ailment and sit them the last 7-8 games of the year.

I mean look.....It was beyond obvious that Kerr gave a rats-arse if they won tonight, right? He rested Green...sat all the starters the 4th, and gave the deep bench some run. It was a totally meaningless game that the outcome had no consequences, and you can bet your bottom dollar that NOBODY on that team took offense, or is in any way angered/damaged that Kerr tossed that game out. Right?

Well that was us...only for 10 games. In fact there was something possibly great to come from LOSING. So I just don't see/agree with the "ruin the locker room" theory. If this team lost when it had something to play for.....now THAT would definitely be bad.

Do you think that Ingram has benefited greatly from not having his minutes restricted? If yes, how much better is he from ALL the minutes and experience he's gotten.

Is that quantifiable? The Lakers chose running with Ingram, Clarkson, Randle, Russell, they've upped all their values, gained valuable experience for the kids, and clearly, to me anyway, established themselves as a self-respecting organization.

Your line appears to be actually telling players to lose. That's cool, but that line, to me, leaves a lot of room for "funny business". You can do a lot off bad and questionable tank moves and still not come close to that line.

The question is, in your plan, if the guys you expect to tank with (Ennis, Nwaba, Black, Robinson, and Brewer) play too well, what do you do then, what'd you do if that lineup wins two games? You pull them for who? World Peace? You think he gives a **** about a tank either? NBA guys are good people, especially if their united and focused on common goal. That, mixed with opportunity , is a conduit for good things.

This team ain't built to lose. If you're gonna go all Hinkie, if the pick is lost, let's dump all these bums for picks and throw a team out there that is built to lose. We will've had a completely protected 2018 pick. Let's do it.

If you're gonna follow the Hinkie tanking model, you might as well follow the whole damn thing, not just a piece here and a piece there. How many of these guys would Hinkie have traded by now? How many? Man, if you're gonna put on your pants, don't leave them at your knees.

Playing Ennis, Nwaba, Black, Robinson, and Brewer would've required some "tinkering" because that team is too good to be a tank lineup. NBA players are good brotha, and those guys, including W.Peace, would've brought it in the fourth. You ever see Thomas Robinson at Kansas? That dude wants it now. Nwaba needs it, and Black and Brewer have self respect, with really good athleticism to boot.

Your problem is that you are greatly simplifying Tankonomics -- you gotta actually have a bad and very poorly constructed team.

That ain't this team. The Lakers, unfortunately, are bad enough to be within arms reach of the second worst team in the league with no real additional "help" needed. If you consistently cross the line of transparency, you've gone too far. We should be grateful they have good odds in the "JJ-Stakes", upped Randle and Clarkson's value, and developed the young bucs.

[danfantastk32]

Do you think that Ingram has benefited greatly from not having his minutes restricted? If yes, how much better is he from ALL the minutes and experience he's gotten.

Is that quantifiable? The Lakers chose running with Ingram, Clarkson, Randle, Russell, they've upped all their values, gained valuable experience for the kids, and clearly, to me anyway, established themselves as a self-respecting organization.

Your line appears to be actually telling players to lose. That's cool, but that line, to me, leaves a lot of room for "funny business". You can do a lot off bad and questionable tank moves and still not come close to that line.

The question is, in your plan, if the guys you expect to tank with (Ennis, Nwaba, Black, Robinson, and Brewer) play too well, what do you do then, what'd you do if that lineup wins two games? You pull them for who? World Peace? You think he gives a **** about a tank either? NBA guys are good people, especially if their united and focused on common goal. That, mixed with opportunity , is a conduit for good things.

This team ain't built to lose. If you're gonna go all Hinkie, if the pick is lost, let's dump all these bums for picks and throw a team out there that is built to lose. We will've had a completely protected 2018 pick. Let's do it.

If you're gonna follow the Hinkie tanking model, you might as well follow the whole damn thing, not just a piece here and a piece there. How many of these guys would Hinkie have traded by now? How many? Man, if you're gonna put on your pants, don't leave them at your knees.

Playing Ennis, Nwaba, Black, Robinson, and Brewer would've required some "tinkering" because that team is too good to be a tank lineup. NBA players are good brotha, and those guys, including W.Peace, would've brought it in the fourth. You ever see Thomas Robinson at Kansas? That dude wants it now. Nwaba needs it, and Black and Brewer have self respect, with really good athleticism to boot.

Your problem is that you are greatly simplifying Tankonomics -- you gotta actually have a bad and very poorly constructed team.

That ain't this team. The Lakers, unfortunately, are bad enough to be within arms reach of the second worst team in the league with no real additional "help" needed. If you consistently cross the line of transparency, you've gone too far. We should be grateful they have good odds in the "JJ-Stakes", upped Randle and Clarkson's value, and developed the young bucs.

No no no no no no no.....

I'm sorry, but I think your totally missing my concept here. I'm totally fine with Ingram's minutes. IM TALKING ABOUT THE LAST 10 GAMES OF THE SEASON. I don't want to follow Hinkies model...I don't want to tank. I don't want to put Ennis, Tarik out there.

BUT 72 GAMES INTO THE SEASON, WE WERE SITTING THERE AT THE BOTTOM. Stop playing your best players 30+ minutes at that point. End the season in whatever ugly fashion necessary to ensure best odds on the pick.

You need to stop making it into this "culture" thing. Nobody want's to start a season thinking tank. But at some point.....you gotta take stock of where the team is at.....and what your options are. 72 games into this season, it was VERY CLEAR what was left on the table.

Your comment here: "Your problem is that you are greatly simplifying Tankonomics -- you gotta actually have a bad and very poorly constructed team."

We have a bad and poorly constructed team! We're total garbage! Even with our streak we came in 28th out of 30. The only reason we won those games is because we still played our best players big minutes, and the other teams had already folded their tents.

Again...I really don't think this is complicated. Your sitting there at 2nd to last with 10 games left, and in the unique "draft situation" were in. You give your best players less minutes....and your worst players more, to try and lock up the best % at the pick you can. Luke did the opposite.

[ALL HAIL]

End the season in whatever ugly fashion necessary to ensure best odds on the pick.

That's where we differ then. My line is transparency.

[ALL HAIL]

You give your best players less minutes....and your worst players more, to try and lock up the best % at the pick you can.

That's cool, but what if your "worst players" are playing well? Immeadiately yank them for one of your "best players"?

Then what if a "bestie" starts ballin'?

You want to pull starters in the fourth, but what happens when the bench guys play well (reference Ennis' last handful of games)?

So, you call an audible by pulling a hot Ennis and replace him with who, Russell? Clarkson? And what if they play well? What's your next chess move?

If the Suns and Sixers have taught us anything, it's that true tanking is not a passive art.

When you throw an extremely active tanking element in Phoenix, as your competitor, into the mix, then it only increases your level of desperation.

This is true in all aspects of life: You have to have a line you are completely unwilling to cross.

If not, you could end up with Zubac has your fourth quarter PG, or, even worse, a dick in your mouth.

[Pointgod]

If we keep the 3rd pick I'd rather trade down and grab a lottery another lottery pick in next year's draft. Josh Jackson seems a lot like Iguodala to me. Not worth the 3rd pick. His shooting numbers are off putting. I don't want to hear anything about Kawaii we don't have Pop coaching

[trevm37]

Anyone remember when we started the season 10-10?

[LakersSoul]

Anyone remember when we started the season 10-10?

We started 10-10 and the playoff dreams were alive and kicking!!...
I took a long, long, long nap and my mind wont allow me to remember.....
We ended the season 5-1...
I just dont remember the middle part.

How did we do? I keep hearing this #3 seed. Are we the #3 seed in the playoffs?

[LakersSoul]

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19154021/lakers-says-prepared-lose-pick-sixers

Pelinka on the lottery and building a championship team...


"...the destination of getting to a championship might be like a Rubik's Cube. You're looking at this thing and it's got all these different colors and you've got to get them to all line up. There's 1,000 different ways to turn the cube and to get it so it all lines up, but you're going to eventually do. Maybe you have the pick; maybe you don't.

"But you have to continue to make moves and turn it until you have that complete perfect picture, and that's what we're doing every day, and that's what we're analyzing and looking at."

[danfantastk32]

That's cool, but what if your "worst players" are playing well? Immeadiately yank them for one of your "best players"?
Then what if a "bestie" starts ballin'? You want to pull starters in the fourth, but what happens when the bench guys play well (reference Ennis' last handful of games)?

So, you call an audible by pulling a hot Ennis and replace him with who, Russell? Clarkson? And what if they play well? What's your next chess move?If the Suns and Sixers have taught us anything, it's that true tanking is not a passive art.

When you throw an extremely active tanking element in Phoenix, as your competitor, into the mix, then it only increases your level of desperation.This is true in all aspects of life: You have to have a line you are completely unwilling to cross. If not, you could end up with Zubac has your fourth quarter PG, or, even worse, a dick in your mouth.

I don't quite understand the 'dick in your mouth' comment...but whatever.

As for the rest of it....I feel like we went over this. It's like your trying to get a confession out of me. This is all about simple logic, IMO. I'm going to say this once more: You play your best players less.....and your worst players more. How crazy you wanna go with it, depends on how important tanking is to you.

I have said several times.....if Metta, Tarik, Deng, and the like win the game.....you can rest your head knowing you did the best you could. The exact same logic applies to the pick. I'm VERY aware we could be #1 in the lottery and still lose the pick. But if that happens, at least you walk away knowing you gave it your all.

If we lose this pick....are you gonna think we did all we could, or do you think this is gonna sit and stick with people for a while? How completely dumb will these last 5 wins feel, if we get booted and Phoenix get's the #1 or #2 pick? Will it have been worth it for you? Do you think it was worth it as a team?

If you need a line I won't cross, here you go: I would never purposefully injure a player on my own team, so we'd lose. How's that. That's a line I would definitely not cross. Would I sit Russell for 5 games? Absolutely. Would I have played the 'starters' more like 15-20 minutes those last 10 games, instead of 30-plus? Sure.

I don't know what else to tell you.

[Kilroy]

Well, the tanks over... Don't think we'll have a thread like this again in several years. Regardless of how the lottery balls bounce...

So I'm going to kill this. Good riddance... I'll start a Lottery thread instead.