Is there anyone not for tanking at this point?

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

for me, personally, you can't put the moralistic argument aside. that is a huge part of the equation.

---

Creatine is immoral. It artificially enhances performance whether or not it is legal. I would take creatine everyday.

Does anyone talk about Cleveland's infidelity before meeting and marrying Lebron? What about ours before Childress? Before MW? Did you support that infidelity then? Not now?

We aren't talking adultery here, please.

W

[drzachary]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Aside from the above moralistic argument which I can say reduces our ability to win in the future, do you believe that tanking AND Oden or Durant...

Quote:

---

damages the psyche of young players more than losing inadvertantly

---

?

W

---

yes.

for me, personally, you can't put the moralistic argument aside. that is a huge part of the equation.

that's like asking, "aside from the moralistic argument, is adultry wrong?" "well, i'm destroying my current family life, and i may damage the psyche of my children, but in the long run i may end up with an even better woman for a wife, and the kids should come around eventually to recognize that." quite a bit extreme, i know, but principles do apply, and they do matter.

---

Principles do matter, and unfortunately they can't be quantified statistically. In video games, play the numbers. When dealing with people, moralist arguments (really, the main argument is psychological more than moralist) matter. Well said!

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Sorry Walter. While the rest of the "anti-tankers" may have jumped ship, I'll stay on board by myself, and man the ship.

Here's the fundamental difference between a person like me, and a person like you. You believe that the ONLY HOPE for this franchise, is to land either Oden or Durant. I believe that the ONLY HOPE for this franchise, is if JJ, Smoove, Marvin and possibly Childress continue to develop into consistent players. And even if they develop, I understand that pieces will still have to be added in the future, to further solidify the team. Those pieces could be star players, or role players. We don't know yet.

You believe that landing Oden is vital to building a championship team. I say that we have to get to playoff level first, before anybody even talks about winning titles, with or without Oden.

The fact is this. Even if we're lucky enough to land Oden or Durant, it'll make no difference if guys like Smoove and Marvin are inconsistent, shooting 43% FG, and still making head-scratching plays that kill this team. Or guys like ZaZa still can't play defense when Oden gets in foul trouble. And that doesn't include the other inconsistent players we have on the squad. We have to continue to develop the kids we have here now, in order to be better in the future. We need a full team effort to win. Not just great play from a few guys. Of course I'd take Oden or Durant. But I'm fully prepared to see this team blossom without Oden, because I believe that they can.

And personally, I just can't get excited about putting all of my hope into the Draft Lottery. I'd rather see Marvin, Chill and Smoove finish the season on a strong note . . AND . . get lucky in the draft . . than to see them fizzle out, with the coach limiting their minutes. But that's just me. This is obviously not the sentiment of the board.

You've been accusing people all year of having no plan. The truth, is that your only plan is to HOPE that we get lucky in the draft. Other than that, you've been tossing out ridiculous propositions like obtaining Sene or Luke Ridnour, who isn't even the PG leader of his own team. Or you toss out a bunch of unrealistic trade proposals, like trying to get Andrew Bynum, when the Lakers aren't giving up the kid for nothing. Or that ridiculous Pierce/Jefferson for JJ/( insert name or draft pick here )

The plan for this team is simple. Develop the kids, and get them adequate support to help this team overall. And we can do that without "wishing upon a damn star" and hope the Tooth Fairy leave us some money under the pillow.

*************

Let's say we fall off the face of the earth, and get that #3 spot record wise. When the lotto balls start to fall, and the 4 separate numbers come out, we already know that the team in the #3 slot has a 84.4% chance of NOT landing the first pick in the draft. That's set in stone. LOL . . I just can't get excited about that. But I guess for the rest of you guys, it'll keep you going until May 22nd. Since most of the pro-tank crowd have lost complete confidence in this team, this is the only thing you guys have to look forward to. Sorry if I refuse to be in that "wishing well" camp.

And contrary to popular belief on this board, the Hawks, even at #3, do NOT have a 30%+ chance of landing a top 3 pick. After the first pick, which we know is set in stone at 84.4% failure, the 2nd and 3rd pick probabilities are not set in stone. That percentage is determined by what team gets the first pick. And that percentage for the #3 team NEVER gets higher than 29% favorable in either of the first three selections.

For example. If the team with the worst record gets the #1 pick, the Hawks have a 79.2% chance of NOT getting the 2nd pick. That would be the best odds we could have for obtaining the 2nd pick. The equation for this is simple.

- 1,000 lottery combo chances total for all 14 teams.

- Worst record has 250 of thsoe chances.

- 3rd worst record has 156 of those chances.

If worst record gets the top pick, 250 of those chances come off the board for the 2nd pick ( even if one of the worst pick lottery combinations pop up again in the drawing process. They'll just discard that combo, and keep drawing until a combo that doesn't fit the team that got the #1 pick comes up )

1,000 total chances - 250 worst team chances = 750 total chances for 2nd pick.

750 total chances - 156 chances for #3 team = 594 chances that we DON'T have to get that 2nd pick.

594 / 750 = 79.2% chance we don't get the pick.

Here are the percentages for the rest of the picks.

- if 2nd worst get the #1 pick - 80.5% chance not getting the pick

- 4th worst - 82.3%

- 5th worst - 82.9%

- 6th worst - 83.4%

- 7th worst - 83.7%

.

.

.

- 14th worst - 84.4%

So after that is done, the final slot is chosen. If the lottery holds to form, and the 2 worst teams in the lottery get the top 2 picks, the Hawks still have a 71.7% chance of NOT landing the #3 pick And that's the best we can hope for in the 3rd slot.

If someone were to tell any of you that Marvin would have a 71.7% chance of being a bust, the board would be all for trading him as quick as possible. You guys wouldn't even try to spin it as . . "well, Marvin has about a 30% chance of being good to great, so we should keep him." The sentiment would be totally different in that situation. But I understand where you guys are coming from. You have to HOPE for SOMETHING, I guess. And Oden is your Obi-Wan-Kenobi. Durant is your Luke Skyywalker.

The fact is that the lottery is just that . . the lottery. It's the same process that see people buy $100 or $200 dollars worth of Mega Million tickets ( Powerball tickets for me in Tennessee ), and think they have a better shot than the guy or gal that buys a $3 quick pick.

When it's all said and done, the only thing that matters is how the balls fall out. And no matter how many chances you have, you have NO CONTROL over how the balls fall out.

It's the same process that saw Golden St leapfrog the T-Wolves, Clippers, Sixers, and Bullets in 1995.

- saw the Raptors and Sixers leapfrog the Griz in 96

- saw the Griz get passed over AGAIN in 97, dropping from worst to 4th

- saw the Clips drop from #2 to #4 in 99

- saw the Nets go from #6 to #1 in 00

- saw the Warriors go from #2 to #5 in 01

- saw the Rockets go from #5 to #1 in 02

- saw the Cavs, who deserved the pick, get the top pick in 03 . . how convienent for the Cavs, to get the home state prodigy, when the 7 of the previous 8 teams with the worst record DIDN'T get the top pick.

- see Milwaukee go from #6 to #1 in 05

Hell, if you go by the 11 year sample of this current lottery, you almost want to be the #3 team . . or the #5 or #6 team, instead of the #1 or #2 team.

Bottom line. The lottery is a crapshoot that you can't plan for. That's why a team like Philly, who could definitely use a Durant to team with Iggy, isn't worried about "tanking". They're just playing out the season, and letting the chips fall where they may.

If it is the Hawks "destiny" to land the #1 or #2 spot, they will get one of those two positions. If not, which pretty much may be the scenario, you have to play the cards that are dealt to you, discard a few, and hope you get better cards to play with ( that you choose ).

(( stepping off the podium ))

Your turn Mr. Speaker.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

If the lottery holds to form, and the 2 worst teams in the lottery get the top 2 picks, the Hawks still have a

71.7% chance of NOT landing the #3 pick

And that's the best we can hope for in the 3rd slot.

---

There are essentially 3 drafts for 3 positions. In total with the 3rd worst record we have roughly a 50% chance at a top 3 pick. I realize your attempt to make the odds somehow seem less impressive for tanking, but it was a big waste of time. You don't get to the situation you are describing above without two other similar drawings and the collective odds for the 3rd worst record winning a top 3 pick is about 50%. If you can't make your argument in the face of that then I guess you would have to post a novelette of pseudo odds.

Happy sailing.

W

[Guest Walter]

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives...y_to_all_teams/

I'm assuming he wouldn't ever "tank". Awful easy position to take when he coached NY, who would have a distinct advantage given it's FA lure and $$$, and his current team had already tanked in order to win the rights to Yao before he got there. Imagine what he'd be saying without Yao. Actually, he'd never have taken the job. Funny.

W

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

The plan for this team is simple. Develop the kids, and get them adequate support to help this team overall.

---

If it weren't for certain posters' obsession with labeling things as "pro-tank" or "anti-tank," I think most of us would be agreeing with this statement right now.

"Tanking" is irrelevant. No amount of finger-waving will making it relevant.

Let's get back to more important things like how much playing time we want Salim to get next year, what progress we hope to see out of Solomon, etc.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The plan for this team is simple. Develop the kids, and get them adequate support to help this team overall.

---

If it weren't for certain posters' obsession with labeling things as "pro-tank" or "anti-tank," I think most of us would be agreeing with this statement right now.

"Tanking" is irrelevant. No amount of finger-waving will making it relevant.

Let's get back to more important things like how much playing time we want Salim to get next year, what progress we hope to see out of Solomon, etc.

---

That can wait until next year. In the meantime there is a lot of to be done.

[Diesel]

IS Northcyde a reference to the School?

[hawkman]

Where was all of this anti-tank talk when we obviously tanked two years ago? Most people on this board were glad that Al was shut down towards the end of the season. They cited "player developement" as the reason that they were glad, but we all really know what was going on. We stunk for the rest of that season, but there was no indignation or protest over what we were doing at the time. All everyone here did was salivate over Bogut or Marvin(Deron or Paul if you prefer revisionist history). I guess the only time people have a problem with tanking is when it's actually "verbalized". Maybe that's why some on this board seem to get so upset when Walter posts about it. Now I'm definitely not for throwing games, but I'm starting to wonder if there's really any purpose to another 25-30 win season. We supposedly improved last season and yet we have ended up in the same place this season that we were in this time last season, except this time there's not much cap space and there's the very real possibility that we won't have a draft pick this year.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Where was all of this anti-tank talk when we obviously tanked two years ago? Most people on this board were glad that Al was shut down towards the end of the season. They cited "player developement" as the reason that they were glad, but we all really know what was going on. We stunk for the rest of that season, but there was no indignation or protest over what we were doing at the time. All everyone here did was salivate over Bogut or Marvin(Deron or Paul if you prefer revisionist history).

---

Most people were furious we didn't shut it down better the year before and certainly appreciated shutting down Al near season's end with a non-surgical injury he had been playing with for some time. Selective morality. That's why I use the phrase "tank" instead of "play the youngsters" plan. Get the language game out of the way. Call it the worst of what it is and get past it. These high and mighty moralists had no problem feeding from the troughs of pigs 2 years ago. NOT ONE PROBLEM!

Quote:

---

I guess the only time people have a problem with tanking is when it's actually "verbalized". Maybe that's why some on this board seem to get so upset when Walter posts about it. Now I'm definitely not for throwing games, but I'm starting to wonder if there's really any purpose to another 25-30 win season. We supposedly improved last season and yet we have ended up in the same place this season that we were in this time last season, except this time there's not much cap space and there's the very real possibility that we won't have a draft pick this year.

---

People want to call "tanking" some noble project. Look at half the bills in politics. "The clear skies initiative" had to be one of the worst environmental bills ever, but give it a good name and suddenly it's all O.K. That's where Exodus is. He calls his "plan" "play the youngsters (and leave it at that)". We ALL know that's tanking. Of course there are people that cannot even reconcile themselves with that despite the fact that they supported straight up tanking 2 years ago.

Who do these people think they're fooling? Even when they join together in support of not "tanking" but something worded less abrassively, they just look like a pack of deluded fools.

W

[DJ_Money]

As I've maintained throughout...what has been proposed here by the pro-tanking crowd is hardly tanking at all.

There's two fundamental ideas behind tanking...

1. Trade off or remove the high dollar contracts and veterans from your team.

See what Philly did with Iverson and Webber.

2. Play your young players more.

We can't play our young players any more minutes than they already are. Josh, Chill, and Marvin already play 30+ minutes per game.

Would I like to see Shelden/Solomon/Batista get more minutes? Yes.

Playing our young players hasn't exactly worked out how the pro-tank crowd has wanted. Putting guys like Salim and Batista on the floor in favor of Speedy and Lo actually makes us a better team. Oops.

I'm not about to retard the development of Josh and Marvin for the faint hope of a #1 pick. Sorry.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Most people on this board were glad that Al was shut down towards the end of the season.

---

I guess you didn't know that Al tore his ACL when he was with the Pacers and had problems with it both seasons here.

They didn't tank, they were just that bad. Lue had to put on Supermans cape to push the Hawks to 13 wins that year instead of 10.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Playing our young players hasn't exactly worked out how the pro-tank crowd has wanted. Putting guys like Salim and Batista on the floor in favor of Speedy and Lo actually makes us a better team. Oops.

---

That is what i have been saying all along but some people would rather just scream TANK TANK TANK rather than accept reality.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Most people on this board were glad that Al was shut down towards the end of the season.

---

I guess you didn't know that Al tore his ACL when he was with the Pacers and had problems with it both seasons here.

---

And those problems conveniently flared up to the point of not being able to play ONLY once and with just games remaining. Interesting historical perspective there Ex.

W

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

2. Play your young players more.

We can't play our young players any more minutes than they already are. Josh, Chill, and Marvin already play 30+ minutes per game.

Would I like to see Shelden/Solomon/Batista get more minutes? Yes.

---

Uh, you say we can't play the young players more then you say you want us to. Which one is it?

Not only can you play them more, you can defer to them. See what Batista does when his number is called on offense a few times straight. See what Salim does if he's asked to play the Pg.

W

[DJ_Money]

Yes, I slipped up there. I had something else typed, then went back and put that in there.

We can't play Josh, Chill, or Marvin any more than they already are.

Yes, we can play Shelden, Salim, etc. more. But, facing reality, they're all role players, at best.

I'm for playing the others more at the expense of Speedy, Lue, and Lo. Not at the expense of Josh, Chill and Marvin. And as I already said, we're a better team with those younger guys on the floor, which pretty much defeats the whole idea of tanking.

[hawkman]

I don't know DJ. Player developement hasn't exactly been this organization's strong suit. If that was the case, JT and Diaw would still be playing here and we wouldn't be looking to trade Childress or Salim for a bag of basketballs and some thundersticks. Maybe if we actually land a number one or two pick, we could(and most certainly would) get the kind of talent that would put this team over the top. Oden and Durant are team changers plain and simple. Could you imagine the impact of getting a guy like Oden on this team? We would actually get some national TV exposure for a change. Free agent PGs would actually want to come here.

[hawkman]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Most people on this board were glad that Al was shut down towards the end of the season.

---

I guess you didn't know that Al tore his ACL when he was with the Pacers and had problems with it both seasons here.

They didn't tank, they were just that bad. Lue had to put on Supermans cape to push the Hawks to 13 wins that year instead of 10.

---

Yes I was aware that Al had previous knee problems. But do you think they would have shut him down if we were actually in the playoff race? I seriously doubt it. They saw that it was useless to continue to have him play as the season was unofficially "over". They also saw Bogut and Marv in the lottery and I seriously believe that had an undeniable influence on the decision.

[Traceman]

T Lue, Lo and AJ wouldn't see the floor much, if at all, and Zaza would get a lot of rest as well. If we could win with a starting lineup of:

Solomon

Smoove

Marvin

Josh

Salim

so be it.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

T Lue, Lo and AJ wouldn't see the floor much, if at all, and Zaza would get a lot of rest as well. If we could win with a starting lineup of:

Solomon

Smoove

Marvin

Josh

Salim

so be it.

---

Exactly, play a two, big lineup with SJ and Batista just as much as well. Let's give these guys a 10 game tryout for the future.

But to not call that "tanking" is disengenuous and everybody knows it. Especially when you say "If we win so be it". That says you are doing it in part to lose games. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF TANKING!

W