GSW Benching Healthy Starters

[shrink]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3947334

Tonight's game could actually an important game for us to lose, extending our gap over GSW for a few more lottery balls to three games, rather than only one.

I understand we won't lose every game for the rest of the season, and it wouldn't be good for the young player's psyche's if we did. This is just about getting more lottery balls, and a higher pick if we aren't in the top three. If we get wins, I hope they come against serious contenders, but we lose to the teams we are competing with in the lottery.

[funkatron101]

So he is pretty much openly admitting that he is tanking the team. Wonderful.

[john2jer]

So he is pretty much openly admitting that he is tanking the team. Wonderful.

Which means Stern will punish him by pushing them back as far as he can in the lottery.

[Howler21]

So he is pretty much openly admitting that he is tanking the team. Wonderful.

I don't think theres anything in the league that bothers me more than crap like that.

[collin_k41]

Stern needs to make an example out of a team that is blatantly and obviously tanking..I vote take their 1st round pick away and have a lottery in which each team in the NBA has one ball and winner takes the pick. Or maybe just the lottery teams cuz we all know the celtics, lakers, etc. don't need another star..The hard thing is proving the tanking. I think Stern needs to make a formal warning that there WILL be consequences to tanking.

As for tonight's game, I'll never wish a loss upon this team. That doesn't mean I don't expect us to lose pretty much every night we're on the floor without Al though. At least losing doesn't feel too bad knowing we are just improving our chances to bring in a nice player for next year.

[john2jer]

Stern needs to make an example out of a team that is blatantly and obviously tanking..I vote take their 1st round pick away and have a lottery in which each team in the NBA has one ball and winner takes the pick. Or maybe just the lottery teams cuz we all know the celtics, lakers, etc. don't need another star..The hard thing is proving the tanking. I think Stern needs to make a formal warning that there WILL be consequences to tanking.

As for tonight's game, I'll never wish a loss upon this team. That doesn't mean I don't expect us to lose pretty much every night we're on the floor without Al though. At least losing doesn't feel too bad knowing we are just improving our chances to bring in a nice player for next year.

Maybe just take their balls and spread them out between the remaining 13 lottery teams, and move the tanking team back to the 14th pick automatically, thus a few teams all move up at least one spot. Of course I have conflicting thoughts on this:

1. Proving a team is tanking could be tough. Benching healthy stars is a smoking gun, but not multiple eye witnesses.

2. Isn't the actual tanking enough of a punishment? The casual fan is going to lose interest in the losing team, thus hurting their attendance, the attitude changes for the team, and really, what's the big deal in tanking? I mean obviously you play to win the game, and it goes against everything I believe in as a competitor, but if a team has had major injuries and decides to basically shut down the stars for the last 20 games to rebuild next year, it doesn't bother me much. The season's wasted, might as well make the most of it and get your young players who are the future of the franchise some much needed minutes and experience.

[Krapinsky]

And we're starting Jason Collins at center. What's your point?

[Howler21]

GS is taking it as a time to "develop" young talent. Meanwhile, fans will show up to find out Jamal Crawford will not be playing..........there will be a massive outrage.

[funkatron101]

And we're starting Jason Collins at center. What's your point?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but if you are claiming that the Wolves are tanking for starting Collins, that's a silly comment to make. Having different starting and secondary lineups is different than not playing your healthy starters at all.

One is trying to find a combination of players that will help keep the production flowing throughout the game, the other is just...tanking.

[Krapinsky]

And we're starting Jason Collins at center. What's your point?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but if you are claiming that the Wolves are tanking for starting Collins, that's a silly comment to make. Having different starting and secondary lineups is different than not playing your healthy starters at all.

One is trying to find a combination of players that will help keep the production flowing throughout the game, the other is just...tanking.

I was quite clearly (or so I thought) being facetious. However, I'm just not sure what's worse-- an NBA team tanking, or one fielding a team that starts Jason Collins at center. Both are bad for the state of the NBA.

[john2jer]

Collins is starting due to lack of options, not because we're sitting someone down who's healthy and could help us win. but yeah, agreed, sorry state to be in.

[shrink]

Stern needs to make an example out of a team that is blatantly and obviously tanking..I vote take their 1st round pick away and have a lottery in which each team in the NBA has one ball and winner takes the pick.

.. or immediately take the pick from them, and give it to the very next team they play.

[shrink]

Structurally, this demonstrates that there is a problem with the lottery system.

The system has a tough job. Moreso than in almost any sport, the success or failure of a basketball team is often based on acquiring one key player. Teams only have five on the court at one time, and they play both offense and defense, so the impact of an individual player is greater. Superstars get calls and constantly have the ball in their hands. CLE is a contender for one reason -- they won a lottery and got LeBron.

So there is milions of dollars worth of incentive to get these players, but we also need parity in the league, and the lottery system was supposed to provide that too.

Supposedly the randomness of the lottery system, plus the desire to put a product on the floor to please ticket-buyers was supposed to be enough to stop deliberate tanking .. or at least tanking this early in the season. However, this is obviously not the case. What can be done?

In the short-term, I actually agree that Stern needs to make an example of GSW. I think the proper punishment would be to threaten to remove their chance for winning a Top 3 pick in the 2009 lottery, and a threat that if this continues, they could lose their chances in 2010. This summer, the owners needs to get together and discuss whether the current system can be amended.

Would reducing the odds, so that worse teams don't necessarily have a better chance at winning a top three pick, help, or hurt? It might reduce tanking (except tanking out of the play-offs) if the 17th place team has the same chance at winning the lottery as the 30th, but is it worth the cost where a Tim Duncan can get put on the Spurs, or teams toiling with lack of talent never seem to get the star player? Its a difficult situation.

[ChazzleDazzle]

Sports Guy had a great column on this...


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ons/070411


Editor's note: This column appears in the April 23 issue of ESPN The Magazine.

If ESPN ever creates a channel called ESPN Anti-Classic, I hope it launches with a telecast of April 4's stink bomb between Milwaukee and Boston. Ever seen opponents basically shave points at the same time? Well, it happened. Already playing without Andrew Bogut and Charlie Villanueva, Milwaukee shelved Mo Williams ("sore knee") and Michael Redd ("sore knee") in a desperate bid to blow the game for lottery position. And it would have worked, but they sorely underestimated an always-say-die Celtics team missing Paul Pierce ("sore elbow") and Al Jefferson ("hog-tied to a radiator"). Milwaukee lost by winning; Boston won by losing; every paying customer lost, period.

It's a phenomenon unique to the NBA. With 30 teams and only a handful of superstar prospects per decade, landing Greg Oden or Kevin Durant really is like winning the lottery. You'd be foolish if you didn't try to swing the odds in your favor, even if that means exaggerating injuries, giving crunch-time minutes to scrubs and disgracing the integrity of the game. When Charlotte's tanking plans were recently dashed by 12th man Walter Herrmann -- who improbably ignited a few upset wins -- I half expected them to hire Shane Stant to attack Herrmann after a practice, followed by Walter rolling around like Nancy Kerrigan, screaming, "Why? Why???"

Two months ago in this space, when I introduced the concept of "fantanking" and rooted for an Oden-inspired Celtics collapse, I swear, my heart was in the right place. For the greater good, and under the current rules, the Celtics needed to lose and keep losing. And that's what happened. At the same time, I can't imagine the NBA feels good about a system that encourages fans to turn on their own teams. Remember, the league created the lottery in 1985 to prevent tanking. After six years of tinkering, it settled on a system of weighted Ping-Pong balls, until Orlando landed back-to-back No. 1 picks (defying 66-1 odds the second year). Panicking, the league significantly increased the odds that bad teams would finish in the top three, inadvertently leaving the door open for tanking again.

In retrospect, though, what's worse: Tankapalooza 2007 or a young team winning two straight lotteries? Did it negatively impact TV ratings, attendance or general fan interest to have a suddenly stacked Magic team? Were you turning off your TV in the mid-'90s because Shaq and Penny were on? The NBA's crucial mistake was forgetting that it's better to have more quality teams, even at the expense of a few extra doormats. This isn't the NFL; parity can't work. Remember the late '70s and the deadly stretch of seasons after the NBA/ABA merger? Everyone thinks play suffered because of rampant coke use and the first wave of overpaid/underachieving superstars, which was partially true. The bigger problem? The merger loaded every team's roster to the degree that nobody could stand out. From 1977 through 1979, only six teams won more than 50 games, only six won fewer than 30, and nobody won more than 58 or fewer than 22. What's fun about that?

On the flip side, when the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers and Pistons were battling for control of the 1980s, did anyone care that the Clips, Cavaliers, Warriors and Kings were dreadful? Was it a coincidence that the NBA peaked from 1987 to 1993, with a lopsided league of quality teams and crummy teams? Call it the 600/400 Rule: More teams finishing above .600 (50 wins or more) and under .400 (50 losses or more) makes for a more entertaining league. During the glorious '88 season, my choice for the greatest ever, there were eight plus-.600 teams and six sub-.400 teams in a 23-team league.

During another superb stretch, from 1991 to 1993, there were 24 plus-.600 teams and 24 sub-.400 teams (two-thirds of the league). Again, that's a good thing. We want to watch good teams with star players. The more the merrier, right? Just look at this lackluster 2007 season, when we're saddled with six plus-.600 teams, five sub-.400 teams and 19 in-the-middle teams. Sure, it's more difficult to improve because of the salary cap and luxury tax, and it's nearly impossible to snooker other GMs (even Isiah has wised up). But I blame the lottery for foisting modified parity on us. Ever since Orlando went back-to-back, top picks have gone to lousy teams every spring, creating a vicious circle in which the lottery replenishes weak teams with blue-chippers who aren't ready to carry weak teams. In the past 14 years, only one No. 1 pick made his team instantly competitive: Tim Duncan, who joined a contender that had slipped only because of injuries. Looking back, was it bad that Duncan and David Robinson played together? Was the NBA's competitive spirit compromised? Of course not.

And that's why the lottery sucks: Not only does it render the occasional Duncan/ Robinson pairing nearly impossible, not only does it reward poorly run clubs like the Hawks (103 games under .500 since the 1998-99 season), it encourages also-rans to bottom out once they suffer some bad luck because they know it's their best chance to eventually contend. So can't we admit that the lottery system has failed? Shouldn't the element of luck play a bigger role than it does?

Anyway, here's my solution:
1. Contract the league to 27 teams and dump Memphis, Charlotte and Atlanta, three cities that can't support NBA basketball and never could. Then we'll have a league-wide lottery to determine positioning for the dispersal draft of players from those three teams. (Note: We've already sedated Chad Ford just in case this happens.) And if a contender like Chicago happens to end up with Pau Gasol ... I think we'll manage.

2. Change the lottery back to that of the late '80s: one envelope per team, same odds for everybody, top three draft spots only. Boom! We've solved the tanking problem. If a half-decent team happens to land a franchise player, like the Wolves getting Oden and pairing him with KG ... I think we'll manage.

3. Shorten the regular season by four games, guarantee the top six seeds in each conference, then have a double-elimination tourney for the seventh and eighth seeds between the remaining 15 teams. I suggest this for five reasons. First, it would be entertaining as hell. In fact, that's what we'll call it: the Entertaining-as-Hell Tournament. Second, I'm pretty sure we could get it sponsored. Third, the top 12 teams get a reward: two weeks of rest while the tournament plays out.

Fourth, a Cinderella squad could pull off some upsets, grab an eighth seed and win fans along the way. And fifth, with the Entertaining-as-Hell Tournament giving everyone a chance, no team could tank down the stretch without insulting paying customers beyond repair. That's the lamest thing about tanking: not that it's morally unsound, but that fans pay full price to see a depleted group of losers with dubious intentions. At a recent Bobcats-Celtics game, my father (a 34-year season ticket-holder) watched Boston toss away a double-digit lead while Pierce and Jefferson watched from the bench. To his right, a fan screamed at Doc Rivers, "You're doing the right thing!" To his left, another fan screamed that the collapse was "an absolute disgrace!" And as my father told me later, the disturbing thing was that both guys were right.

[ritt0093]

Would reducing the odds, so that worse teams don't necessarily have a better chance at winning a top three pick, help, or hurt?

Ive always been intrigued by a lottery idea something like this:

14 teams in the lottery preranked according to lowest winning percentage. Ties are broken based on strength of schedule, or other predetermined tie-breakers (don't really care, its a minor detail).

1
2
3
.
.
.
13
14

Team 14 and Team 13 flip a coin. If team 14 wins they bump team 13 down a spot and repeat the process with team 12. If team 13 wins, team 14 stays put, and team 13 flips a coin with team 12. And so on and so forth until we have a flip for the #1 pick.

This system would make team 13 and team 14 equivalent, which could help encourage those #9 seeds to push for the playoffs. This also prevents any team from falling more than one spot from their regular season finish. With this approach, in general the more talented propects go to teams with higher need. It also means any team can still win (or atleast improve) their lottery position. In theory team 14 could win 13 coin flips and pick 1st.

Lastly, I do have concern that teams at the bottom of the standings would try to tank, but I figure thats what is happening now anyway. In many drafts there are only 1-3 top prospects, so finishing 3rd still means a 50% chance of missing one of the blue chippers.

[mandurugo]

Punishing teams by taking away draft picks is a terrible idea. When the wolves were caught in the Joe Smith fiasco and Stern elected to remove 5 draft picks starting immediately after the team had traded it's most recent draft pick, he basically said he was going to gut the team. While the NBA relented and returned some of the picks eventually, the actual punishment was still incredibly harsh for a struggling team with only one legitimate star. Stern essentially robbed the team of their best chance of building around KG. The reason I think this punishment was terrible is that it punished the fans of the team as well as the active players of the team who were entirely innocent along with the guilty parties. Stern walked into a crowded courtroom, loaded a shotgun and fired it at the criminal - and everyone around him. It would be much better to target only the offenders - in that case fine the owner, the gm, the agent and the player, ban them from the game, do whatever you want to them - just don't hurt the innocent directly. In the case of tanking (if you can prove it) the same principle holds. Admittedly it is a little more difficult to apply, because in this case they are artificially improving their draft pick. Perhaps the best thing would be to change their lottery odds, but to totally remove their pick or give them no chance to win doesn't feel fair to their fans.

[floppymoose]

I don't think theres anything in the league that bothers me more than crap like that.

You must have hated watching Madsen shoot all those threes.

[john2jer]

I've always been in favor of the style of lottery that the NHL used a couple years ago after their lockout when Crosby was the clear top pick. Having the lottery be adjusted based on number of play-off appearances in recent years and times a team has won the lottery in recent years would make it so the truly bad franchises who've had multiple years of sucky-dom get the top picks.

Each team starts with three times the number of balls as their inverse place in the standings, so that the worst team receives 14*3=42 balls, 2nd worst receives 13*3=39, and so on until the best team to miss the play-offs gets 3 balls. If a team has made the play-offs in the last three years they lose 3 balls, if they've "won the lottery" in the last three years they lose an inverse number of balls so that if you got the first pick you lose three balls, if you got the second pick you lose two, and if you got the third you lose one. The least amount of balls you can end with is 1 ball. With the balls lost added back to the teams that didn't go below 1, so the teams that aren't just a hair away from the play-offs.

Results if the play-offs started this morning would look like this...

14. Phoenix - 1
13. Chicago - 1
12. New Jersey - 8
11. Indiana - 14
10. Toronto - 17
9. Charlotte - 19
8. New York - 23
7.Golden State - 26
6. Minnesota - 31
5. Memphis - 32
4. Oklahoma City - 36
3. Washington - 36
2. LA Clippers - 39
1. Sacramento - 45

Summary - Toronto and Washington's chances were hurt the most with 2 spot shifts in the lottery due to their recent play-off appearances and Toronto winning the lottery once. Clippers, Thunder, New York, and Charlotte saw a rise by 1 spot due to their sucky-dom and lack of luck. New York was the only team not penalized by this method.

Conclussion - I need to find a better way to spend my lunch break at work.

[theGreatRC]

Punishing teams by taking away draft picks is a terrible idea. When the wolves were caught in the Joe Smith fiasco and Stern elected to remove 5 draft picks starting immediately after the team had traded it's most recent draft pick, he basically said he was going to gut the team. While the NBA relented and returned some of the picks eventually, the actual punishment was still incredibly harsh for a struggling team with only one legitimate star. Stern essentially robbed the team of their best chance of building around KG. The reason I think this punishment was terrible is that it punished the fans of the team as well as the active players of the team who were entirely innocent along with the guilty parties. Stern walked into a crowded courtroom, loaded a shotgun and fired it at the criminal - and everyone around him. It would be much better to target only the offenders - in that case fine the owner, the gm, the agent and the player, ban them from the game, do whatever you want to them - just don't hurt the innocent directly. In the case of tanking (if you can prove it) the same principle holds. Admittedly it is a little more difficult to apply, because in this case they are artificially improving their draft pick. Perhaps the best thing would be to change their lottery odds, but to totally remove their pick or give them no chance to win doesn't feel fair to their fans.

Great post. It was certainly a heartbreaking consequence, but i'm sure teams will think twice before they do under-the-table deals again. Too bad we had to be the ones experiencing it.

[shrink]

Perhaps the best thing would be to change their lottery odds, but to totally remove their pick or give them no chance to win doesn't feel fair to their fans.

In the short-term, I actually agree that Stern needs to make an example of GSW. I think the proper punishment would be to threaten to remove their chance for winning a Top 3 pick in the 2009 lottery, and a threat that if this continues, they could lose their chances in 2010. This summer, the owners needs to get together and discuss whether the current system can be amended.

I should have been more clear.

I advocate removing their chance for a Top 3 pick, but not removing their pick. If they won the lottery in that back room, they would simply ignore it and pick again.

They'd still get a pick in the lottery, it just wouldn't be Top 3.