CBAreject Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Here we are after 81 games in the 4th position in the lottery...1 game away from 3rd. For 4 months, I've advocated tanking, as you all know. For most of that time, I've endured biting insults from the board. Throughout this time, I've explained that I don't suggest we lose every single game. I've maintained that because of "bunching" in the high lottery this year, 1-2 wins could swing our position (and odds) significantly. Mockers spewed venemous insults, insisting that it would "spread out". I claimed 40 wins would be required to make the playoffs. Opponents assured me that 36 wins was the magic number. I was vehemently opposed to the AJ trade because it could get us 1-2 more wins. Mockers shot back "AJ is our best PG. We need to teach these boys how to win." Now we sit here, wishing we'd won 1-2 fewer games. The AJ trade alone put us here. We traded a large part of our chance at two franchise players for...Anthony Johnson. Just wow. Who knows? If we'd not made the AJ trade and made a subtle, consistent tanking effort for the last 3 months, we might be tied with Boston. 2 games for AJ and 3 extra losses over the course of 3 months is WHAT TANKING IS ABOUT. This is why you tank people, and this is why you tank early. You don't want it to be obvious. You just want to lose 1-2 games per month extra. Three months later, you're sitting pretty in the #2 spot, and nobody is the wiser. I repeat, if we'd done NOTHING MORE than just not trading for AJ, we'd be sitting at #3. I said at the time of the trade that the 1-2 games he would win us may cost us a spot. Now it looks like it will be a VERY critical spot (the jump from 4 to 3 is SIGNIFICANT). As Walter says, here's to hoping we get lucky. I forgive you for all your insults, whether you're man enough to admit you were wrong or not. Let's just pull together and hope and pray that we get lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesheedera Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 I was way wrong early, but then I saw the light. Seems so obvious now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member mrhonline Posted April 17, 2007 Premium Member Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Your post is wrong in so many ways, but I'm tired of debating it with you. What this comes down to is that the Hawks did the right thing by not risking further injury to JJ, Speedy, and Childress when the playoffs were no longer an option. Nothing more, nothing less. If the Hawks get lucky on May 22nd, it will be because they got lucky. Nothing more, nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsuteke Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Quote: Here we are after 81 games in the 4th position in the lottery...1 game away from 3rd. For 4 months, I've advocated tanking, as you all know. For most of that time, I've endured biting insults from the board. Throughout this time, I've explained that I don't suggest we lose every single game. I've maintained that because of "bunching" in the high lottery this year, 1-2 wins could swing our position (and odds) significantly. Mockers spewed venemous insults, insisting that it would "spread out". I claimed 40 wins would be required to make the playoffs. Opponents assured me that 36 wins was the magic number. I was vehemently opposed to the AJ trade because it could get us 1-2 more wins. Mockers shot back "AJ is our best PG. We need to teach these boys how to win." Now we sit here, wishing we'd won 1-2 fewer games. The AJ trade alone put us here. We traded a large part of our chance at two franchise players for...Anthony Johnson. Just wow. Who knows? If we'd not made the AJ trade and made a subtle, consistent tanking effort for the last 3 months, we might be tied with Boston. 2 games for AJ and 3 extra losses over the course of 3 months is WHAT TANKING IS ABOUT. This is why you tank people, and this is why you tank early. You don't want it to be obvious. You just want to lose 1-2 games per month extra. Three months later, you're sitting pretty in the #2 spot, and nobody is the wiser. I repeat, if we'd done NOTHING MORE than just not trading for AJ, we'd be sitting at #3. I said at the time of the trade that the 1-2 games he would win us may cost us a spot. Now it looks like it will be a VERY critical spot (the jump from 4 to 3 is SIGNIFICANT). As Walter says, here's to hoping we get lucky. I forgive you for all your insults, whether you're man enough to admit you were wrong or not. Let's just pull together and hope and pray that we get lucky. you and Walter make for strange bedfellows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lascar78 Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Agreed. And once again, the injuries to JJ and our other young guys had a far bigger impact on losing than the soft tanking measures that were suggested by tankers would have (play JJ and smith a little less, trade lue...) , and as you see even that didn't get you in the bottom 3 pre-lottery. Lol at making a "I was right, I forgive you for your insults" condescending thread when nothing has changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNorthCydeRises Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 And this is what you tankers obvously don't realize. Who do you give AJ's minutes to? Who do you play and not play? And if you're obviously trying to sabotage the lineup in order to lose games, do you completely lose the respect of a guy like Smoove or Chill ( before he got hurt )? I'm surprised with all of this basketball knowledge on the board, that some of you continue to say the most ridiculous things. If you shut down one player, you give opportunity to another player. And when you do that, you'll normally see the bench player rise to the occasion, and play way better than anyone thought he could play. The AJ deal was a very good one to make for a team that was a mere 5 games out of 8th place, with the 6th and 8th place teams at the time ( Orlando and Indy ) freefalling like a skydiver jumping out of a plane. To give up at that point, when a 4 game win streak could cut that gap to 2 - 4 games ( which is exactly what happened in March . . we cut the gap to 3.5 games ), is a LOSER'S MENTALITY. But who do you give AJ's minutes to? A guy like Salim, who had been struggling all year and always had trouble playing the point? 15 games since JJ went down: 12.8 ppg 50% FG ( highest of his career in a 15 game span ) 42% 3 FG 1.1 turnovers ( which is an incredible number for Salim ) **** Do you give them to Shelden Williams, a guy who has fought injury all year and struggling to find his niche? Shelden's numbers the past 7 games. He's played at least 26 minutes in the past 7 games: 11.6 ppg 12 rpb 56% FG ( highest of his career in a 7 game span ) *** How about ZaZa? Do you give him more minutes? Numbers since JJ went down: 15 ppg 7.7 rebs 54% FG **** And what you obviously haven't figured into the equation, are the injuries. - Does JJ still get hurt in your "tank" scenario? - How about Childress? - Does Lue get his legs back under him, and start playing decent ball? - What about Smoove? You can't tell athletes not to play hard, because the athlete himself has to look out for his best interest. It's always in the player's best interest to go all-out, if not for anything, for a team to possibly become interested in acquiring him. Because of that, a team will have to convince ( or pay off ) their team doctor to basically lie to the athlete, making a sprained ankle an injury that needs 2 - 3 weeks rest, instead of 2 - 3 days of rest. You make a calf injury, that may need 2 - 3 weeks rest, an injury that requires 2 months rest. I guarantee you that's exactly what they're telling some of these guys right now, in order to keep them off the court. They're probably telling them to err on the side of caution. Don't come back too soon, because you could do more damage to yourself. And it's probably just not us doing that, the entire league is probably doing that. That's how you effectively tank . . . . keep your best players off the court by LYING to them about the severity of their injuries . . or you trade them away altogether. Otherwise, all of those methods you talk about, could easily backfire and lead to wins, with a healthy Hawks squad. LOL @ still crying about a 3% chance per position, when the odds clearly state that the rest of the teams have an 80 - 90% chance of landing that particular pick, before you do. Don't be shocked when 5th worst gets the top pick . . 1st worst gets the 2nd pick . . and 6th worst gets the 3rd pick. The lottery has NEVER fell in order since they've changed the format. And the only time it's come close to doing that, was when Charlotte was basically handed the 2nd pick, and the worst team got #1 and the 2nd worst got #3. I think one other time, you had two teams tied for either 1st or 2nd, and they both got into the top 3. Every other time, some team outside the top 3 worst, has jumped one, two, or all 3 teams, and landed a top 3 pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exodus Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 First of all your primary concern months ago was the bunching of teams and you wanted the Hawks to avoid that. They did. The bunching is at the 31-33 win level. At that level, as you predicted, a difference in 1 or 2 games could mean the difference in several places in terms of lottery position. As it stands now a difference of 1 or 2 games means moving one spot. It is also a fact that the injuries to JJ and others have had more of a negative impact on the Hawks record than your tanking measures ever would have. Sure the AJ trade made a difference of a game or two but the injuries and Smiths suspension had a much bigger impact than that. There is no way the hawks could have finished with a worse record than Boston. The best case scenario for draft position was 3rd place and the Hawks finished 4th. Hardly a tragedy but of course it was inevitable that you would complain about it. And if the Hawks had finished 3rd you would have been crying that they didn't tank hard enough to finish 2nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNorthCydeRises Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Exactly. These cry-baby fans kill me. But they make me laugh at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member mrhonline Posted April 17, 2007 Premium Member Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Quote: And if the Hawks had finished 3rd you would have been crying that they didn't tank hard enough to finish 2nd. No truer words have ever been typed. Quote: These cry-baby fans kill me. But they make me laugh at the same time. I'm glad you get some amusement out of it. The egos on this board this season have nearly driven me to RealGM full-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AHF Posted April 17, 2007 Moderators Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 4 months remaining in a season is way too early to consider tanking, IMO. The 1-2 game swing you are talking about could have been accomplished by simply waiting until after the team had missed out on its run at the playoffs and then tanking the last weeks of the season rather than the last 4 months of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeye Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 What if we get lucky and get #1 pick in the draft from 4th worst record?? Than you will be wrong right? You never know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators macdaddy Posted April 17, 2007 Moderators Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Yep if only more of us on this internet message board had agreed to tank earlier it really would have made a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBAreject Posted April 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Quote: What if we get lucky and get #1 pick in the draft from 4th worst record?? Than you will be wrong right? You never know! This is incredibly poor logic. If we get the #1 pick with the 4th worst record, we will have gotten lucky. If we got the #1 pick with the worst record, we would have gotten lucky. In hindsight, in either case, we would look back and say we wouldn't have done it any other way. However, looking forward, we can say for certain that to get the #1 pick as the worst team requires far less luck than to get it as the #4 team. BTW, I know you're already thinking about replying with "but we couldn't have been the worst team". Before you do that, please consider that I was using the #1 and #4 worst records for the purposes of an illustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeye Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Quote: Yep if only more of us on this internet message board had agreed to tank earlier it really would have made a difference. HAHAHA, a BIG difference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBAreject Posted April 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Quote: Don't be shocked when 5th worst gets the top pick . . 1st worst gets the 2nd pick . . and 6th worst gets the 3rd pick. The lottery has NEVER fell in order since they've changed the format. And the only time it's come close to doing that, was when Charlotte was basically handed the 2nd pick, and the worst team got #1 and the 2nd worst got #3. I think one other time, you had two teams tied for either 1st or 2nd, and they both got into the top 3. Every other time, some team outside the top 3 worst, has jumped one, two, or all 3 teams, and landed a top 3 pick. This entire paragraph is just a waste of your time and the time of whoever was foolish enough to read it. Who ever said anything about the lottery "falling in order". Who cares that the #1 team is unlikely to get the #1 pick? They're a hella ton more likely to get it than the #6 team. Even if the #6 team gets it, that doesn't mean they were "smart" to finish 6th worst. Regardless of what "history shows" about which team gets the #1 pick (and as utterly meaningless as that is), what's more important is what "history shows" about which picks the #1, #2, and #3 teams get. They pick in the top 3 much more frequently than the #6 team. Yes, some team 4-7 occasionally gets very lucky, but why rely on long shots when you can swing the odds in your favor? You are the player who went all in with 67 against KK, then defended his play with "Well I won, didn't I?" Yes, but that doesn't mean it was a smart decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeye Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Quote: Quote: What if we get lucky and get #1 pick in the draft from 4th worst record?? Than you will be wrong right? You never know! This is incredibly poor logic. If we get the #1 pick with the 4th worst record, we will have gotten lucky. If we got the #1 pick with the worst record, we would have gotten lucky. In hindsight, in either case, we would look back and say we wouldn't have done it any other way. However, looking forward, we can say for certain that to get the #1 pick as the worst team requires far less luck than to get it as the #4 team. BTW, I know you're already thinking about replying with "but we couldn't have been the worst team". Before you do that, please consider that I was using the #1 and #4 worst records for the purposes of an illustration. I am just saying that there is no point in arguing over 3rd or 4th worst record. You can still get #1 pick with both spots and you can drop also. I know we have couple of percents more if we get 3rd worst but it's eithier you lucky or not. It's lottery for god sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBAreject Posted April 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Quote: Yep if only more of us on this internet message board had agreed to tank earlier it really would have made a difference. It doesn't make a difference whether you think we should trade for Gasol, draft Acie Law (or someone else), fire Woody, or move the team to Vegas, either. That doesn't stop you or anyone else on here from giving your opinion or insulting people who disagree with it. My post isn't about whether it would've changed anything if we had "all been on board". It's about people like you who spit venom at those who wanted to do what was best...and still do so even though you've been proven wrong a thousand times over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBAreject Posted April 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Quote: I know we have couple of percents more if we get 3rd worst but it's eithier you lucky or not. You don't understand probability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBAreject Posted April 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 Quote: "I was right, I forgive you for your insults" If you're going to falsely quote me, please don't include a comma splice in it. Anyway, the point is not whether the "JJ injury helped our tanking efforts". The point is that whatever happened in the last 20 games, we would've been better off losing a couple more earlier on. Even if we had 32 wins right now, I would still be saying we should've lost 2 more (and thus had the 4th instead of 6th pick or so). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNorthCydeRises Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 LOL @ far less luck. Even the #1 team has a 75% chance of NOT getting that top pick. That's why the #1 team has only gotten the top pick in the draft only 2 times since they've changed the lottery format in 1995. They have better odds than each team. But in reality, the field is stacked against them. Even you acknowlege that the #1 team has to get "lucky" to get that #1 pick. And you're exactly right with that statement. The system is nothing but a luck system that relies solely on the fall of the ping pong balls. With the way Boston obviously tried to lose games after Pierce went down, and could've brought back Pierce probably 2 weeks earlier than they did . . it would serve them right to fall to #4, and be forced to take a redundant player like an Al Horford or a Noah, instead of acquring a stud like Durant or Oden. (( top Draft conspiracy theories )) 1. Because the league needs Boston to be good, they end up with the #1 pick in the draft. Oden would immeadiately improve Boston to playoff status. 2. Because of Chicago's loyalty as a basketball town, they "magically" end up with the #1 pick, via the Knicks. It would be the ultimate slap in the face to Isaiah, plus, it would give the East a team to elevate to the level of the top western teams for years to come. 3. Because the league severly punished McHale and because they feel sorry for KG ( much like the league felt sorry for David Robinson during the 90s ), the T-Wolves land the #1 pick, and draft Oden 4. Because of Hurricane Katrina, the NBA feels the need to throw the Hornets a "bone", and give them the #1 pick. If the Hornets took Oden, their version of the Twin Towers ( Oden and Chandler ) could make them instant title contenders. If they chose Durant, they may become one of the more exciting teams in the league. In ether case, it's a win-win for the NBA and New Orleans. - - - - 39. Because the NBA feels sorry for the Hawks, they give them the #1 pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now