|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sentient Meat wrote: | | tox wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: |
It's splitting hairs to say not playing your best players is any different than having players play with less intensity. Sure it might sound better in terms of a public relations spin but still it has the same net result. So what if it has better optics to have two teams playing their hardest... it's still not your best team so it's still against the pure spirit of the game. |
No, it's completely different. Did you even read my original post? Popovich rests his players for THEIR BENEFIT. It will help THEM in the long run win championships. Telling young players to suck on purpose is NOT for their benefit. That makes all of the difference. I'm not sure how there's any ambiguity here.
No one is arguing resting players is "for the spirit of the game" so it's a total red herring to bring that up. But it's a tactical decision that benefits the players on the roster, which isn't true of telling your young players to suck on purpose. |
It's to the players' benefit to play with superior players... it's only bad for selfish players or the twelfth man on a terrible team. Would a smart player lose a couple games for the opportunity to play with an all star caliber point guard? I'd say yes. What if your decision became choosing to play with Elden Campbell vs James Worthy or Magic Johnson for the next ten years? |
Not really. That assumes the young core's future is bound to the Lakers. If the Lakers might trade Russell and Randle for Paul George anyways, how is it in their best interest to make sure George gets to play with Markelle Fultz in LA down the line? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KBH wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | | tox wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: |
It's splitting hairs to say not playing your best players is any different than having players play with less intensity. Sure it might sound better in terms of a public relations spin but still it has the same net result. So what if it has better optics to have two teams playing their hardest... it's still not your best team so it's still against the pure spirit of the game. |
No, it's completely different. Did you even read my original post? Popovich rests his players for THEIR BENEFIT. It will help THEM in the long run win championships. Telling young players to suck on purpose is NOT for their benefit. That makes all of the difference. I'm not sure how there's any ambiguity here.
No one is arguing resting players is "for the spirit of the game" so it's a total red herring to bring that up. But it's a tactical decision that benefits the players on the roster, which isn't true of telling your young players to suck on purpose. |
It's to the players' benefit to play with superior players... it's only bad for selfish players or the twelfth man on a terrible team. Would a smart player lose a couple games for the opportunity to play with an all star caliber point guard? I'd say yes. What if your decision became choosing to play with Elden Campbell vs James Worthy or Magic Johnson for the next ten years? |
This is among the silliest things I've ever heard. A player's job is to play. Not to enable the team to acquire other players at their own expense. It's the front office's job to acquire players. Point blank. Your comments are nothing more than a fantasy. |
I wonder if the Warriors thought that acquiring KD would cut into their playing time... or if Spurs felt this about Aldriedge...
A player under the current format should play their hearts out until they are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. At that point it becomes a chess game where one might sacrifice a few pawns in order to get a queen. This isn't the Premier League where you get relegated if you finish in the bottom three. Should they change the rules? Yes. But until then, it was stupid to win those games, and I do blame management more than the players. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
babyskyhook
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 18492
Location: The Garden Island
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KBH wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | | tox wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: |
It's splitting hairs to say not playing your best players is any different than having players play with less intensity. Sure it might sound better in terms of a public relations spin but still it has the same net result. So what if it has better optics to have two teams playing their hardest... it's still not your best team so it's still against the pure spirit of the game. |
No, it's completely different. Did you even read my original post? Popovich rests his players for THEIR BENEFIT. It will help THEM in the long run win championships. Telling young players to suck on purpose is NOT for their benefit. That makes all of the difference. I'm not sure how there's any ambiguity here.
No one is arguing resting players is "for the spirit of the game" so it's a total red herring to bring that up. But it's a tactical decision that benefits the players on the roster, which isn't true of telling your young players to suck on purpose. |
It's to the players' benefit to play with superior players... it's only bad for selfish players or the twelfth man on a terrible team. Would a smart player lose a couple games for the opportunity to play with an all star caliber point guard? I'd say yes. What if your decision became choosing to play with Elden Campbell vs James Worthy or Magic Johnson for the next ten years? |
This is among the silliest things I've ever heard. A player's job is to play. Not to enable the team to acquire other players at their own expense. It's the front office's job to acquire players. Point blank. Your comments are nothing more than a fantasy. |
Exactly. That idea is pure fantasy. The last thing on an NBA player's mind is who's coming out in the draft. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144469
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If one blames the players then they have bigger issue, like not understanding the concept of competition.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is no incentive for a player to play with less intensity. If anything, there is an incentive to always play with high intensity whether it is contract bonuses, job security, or just for the love of the game.
His argument is hypothetical. There is no guarantee that losing will get you the next Magic Johnson.
So using his own question ... what if you did not know if you could play with the next Magic Johnson. What would be the point of losing? There is no guarantee that losing means they get to play with superior players. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | There is no incentive for a player to play with less intensity. If anything, there is an incentive to always play with high intensity whether it is contract bonuses, job security, or just for the love of the game.
His argument is hypothetical. There is no guarantee that losing will get you the next Magic Johnson.
So using his own question ... what if you did not know if you could play with the next Magic Johnson. What would be the point of losing? There is no guarantee that losing means they get to play with superior players. |
Yeah, in every single possible angle, that line of reasoning makes no sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | There is no incentive for a player to play with less intensity. If anything, there is an incentive to always play with high intensity whether it is contract bonuses, job security, or just for the love of the game.
His argument is hypothetical. There is no guarantee that losing will get you the next Magic Johnson.
So using his own question ... what if you did not know if you could play with the next Magic Johnson. What would be the point of losing? There is no guarantee that losing means they get to play with superior players. |
Yeah, in every single possible angle, that line of reasoning makes no sense. |
Yup. I mean, if you're going to go hypothetical, why stop at Magic Johnson? Why not play poorly to ensure world peace? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | tox wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | There is no incentive for a player to play with less intensity. If anything, there is an incentive to always play with high intensity whether it is contract bonuses, job security, or just for the love of the game.
His argument is hypothetical. There is no guarantee that losing will get you the next Magic Johnson.
So using his own question ... what if you did not know if you could play with the next Magic Johnson. What would be the point of losing? There is no guarantee that losing means they get to play with superior players. |
Yeah, in every single possible angle, that line of reasoning makes no sense. |
Yup. I mean, if you're going to go hypothetical, why stop at Magic Johnson? Why not play poorly to ensure world peace? |
Who said there are guarantees? All there is are better odds picking 2nd or 3rd vs. 27th. We were firmly entrenched in the second place, then our players went on a meaningless stats padding surge after they were mathematically eliminated from playoff contention... I guess you can try to extract some type of moral victory from this exhibition but if they truly were good they would have done so while the games actually meant something. Who knows? Maybe we'll still end up with the the first overall pick... or maybe we'll fall to 27th and find a gem down there. Maybe we'll end up finding the best player in 2018. As a fan I hope we do... but honestly I really believe some of you are attaching a greater moral significance to this late season surge than truly exists. If they truly are playing better, then they should be condemned for not playing harder for 90% of the season... but the most likely scenario is that they simply are the beneficiaries of teams resting against them and not simply a late crystalization of form. Many teams don't want the Lakers to rise again... Phoenix obviously has a vested interest in losing to them... The Spurs notoriously rest their players... Yet for some reason, the Lakers must remain the protectors of sports ideals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chad09
Star Player
Joined: 14 Feb 2011
Posts: 6738
Location: Studio City
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Is this next years tank thread? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiendishoc
Star Player
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8488
Location: The (real) short corner
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| People used to @ Lou Williams' twitter all the time with the tank stuff. His response was always something about draft picks being competition for players' jobs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HOF Rookie
Star Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2015
Posts: 1717
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | HOF Rookie wrote: | | Tark the Shark wrote: | | diamondcutter wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | diamondcutter wrote: |
I'm baffled that this is even a debate. Losing two 1st round draft picks in 2017 and 2019 is not worth a few meaningless wins.
|
I am baffled that someone thinks that winning some games at the end of the season means we lose two first round picks. It is a lottery, we either get lucky or we don't. Sure we could get more chances if we lost more games. I can buy one Superlotto ticket and have certain odds to win. Or I could buy 1,000 tickets and have better odds. Does that mean I win if I buy 1,000 and lose if I buy 1? No, it means I am a dumbass to spend $1,000 on Superlotto. |
And I'm baffled that someone doesn't understand the value of improving their odds of winning the NBA Draft Lottery by finishing with with the 2nd worst record vs. the 3rd worst record. Simple math. 55.0%>47.8%. It's not a guarantee of course, but it's still improved odds. There's no logical argument against the math.
Past management has put us in a position where we are being forced to win a top 3 spot in the 2017 lottery to keep two 1st round picks in 2017 and 2019. No one is forcing you to play Super Lotto. But since you tried to using gambling as analogy, I'll do the same. If you decide to go to Vegas to gamble, you're goal is win money. You do this by beating the house. Every game is slated so that the house wins in the long run. That said, certain games have better odds. If you're trying to win money, would you rather play Keno (which has a 25-29% house advantage) or Black Jack (which has 0.28% house advantage). The wisest person doesn't play at all, but since we are being forced to play the lottery, I would choose the game with the best odds. |
Don't mind him. He got his doctorate from the Jim Buss school of stats. |
People really dislike math around here. |
It isn't math, it is chance. Math is finite, a+b always equals c. Math would dictate that the 3rd worst record would get the 3rd pick. Chance tells us differently. People really don't understand math around here. |
There's a reason it's 56% or 47% odds to keep the pick. That is exactly what math is. Math is not finite, try calculus and mathematical theory.
Can't believe you are essentially arguing 56% is essentially the same as 47%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sentient Meat wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | tox wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | There is no incentive for a player to play with less intensity. If anything, there is an incentive to always play with high intensity whether it is contract bonuses, job security, or just for the love of the game.
His argument is hypothetical. There is no guarantee that losing will get you the next Magic Johnson.
So using his own question ... what if you did not know if you could play with the next Magic Johnson. What would be the point of losing? There is no guarantee that losing means they get to play with superior players. |
Yeah, in every single possible angle, that line of reasoning makes no sense. |
Yup. I mean, if you're going to go hypothetical, why stop at Magic Johnson? Why not play poorly to ensure world peace? |
Who said there are guarantees? All there is are better odds picking 2nd or 3rd vs. 27th. We were firmly entrenched in the second place, then our players went on a meaningless stats padding surge after they were mathematically eliminated from playoff contention... I guess you can try to extract some type of moral victory from this exhibition but if they truly were good they would have done so while the games actually meant something. Who knows? Maybe we'll still end up with the the first overall pick... or maybe we'll fall to 27th and find a gem down there. Maybe we'll end up finding the best player in 2018. As a fan I hope we do... but honestly I really believe some of you are attaching a greater moral significance to this late season surge than truly exists. If they truly are playing better, then they should be condemned for not playing harder for 90% of the season... but the most likely scenario is that they simply are the beneficiaries of teams resting against them and not simply a late crystalization of form. Many teams don't want the Lakers to rise again... Phoenix obviously has a vested interest in losing to them... The Spurs notoriously rest their players... Yet for some reason, the Lakers must remain the protectors of sports ideals. |
You said the players should want to play with superior players. Losing doesn't guarantee that they would get to play with superior players.
So again, there is no incentive for the players to play poorly on purpose. If anything, there is incentive not to (i.e. contract bonuses, stock for FA, job security, etc) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerEric
Star Player
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 7193
Location: Vegas
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This roster will be shredded for the most part. Hopefully, it gets to the point of contention sooner rather than later.
_________________
Do you believe it now, Trinity? - Morpheous |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sentient Meat
Franchise Player
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 12978
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | tox wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | There is no incentive for a player to play with less intensity. If anything, there is an incentive to always play with high intensity whether it is contract bonuses, job security, or just for the love of the game.
His argument is hypothetical. There is no guarantee that losing will get you the next Magic Johnson.
So using his own question ... what if you did not know if you could play with the next Magic Johnson. What would be the point of losing? There is no guarantee that losing means they get to play with superior players. |
Yeah, in every single possible angle, that line of reasoning makes no sense. |
Yup. I mean, if you're going to go hypothetical, why stop at Magic Johnson? Why not play poorly to ensure world peace? |
Who said there are guarantees? All there is are better odds picking 2nd or 3rd vs. 27th. We were firmly entrenched in the second place, then our players went on a meaningless stats padding surge after they were mathematically eliminated from playoff contention... I guess you can try to extract some type of moral victory from this exhibition but if they truly were good they would have done so while the games actually meant something. Who knows? Maybe we'll still end up with the the first overall pick... or maybe we'll fall to 27th and find a gem down there. Maybe we'll end up finding the best player in 2018. As a fan I hope we do... but honestly I really believe some of you are attaching a greater moral significance to this late season surge than truly exists. If they truly are playing better, then they should be condemned for not playing harder for 90% of the season... but the most likely scenario is that they simply are the beneficiaries of teams resting against them and not simply a late crystalization of form. Many teams don't want the Lakers to rise again... Phoenix obviously has a vested interest in losing to them... The Spurs notoriously rest their players... Yet for some reason, the Lakers must remain the protectors of sports ideals. |
You said the players should want to play with superior players. Losing doesn't guarantee that they would get to play with superior players.
So again, there is no incentive for the players to play poorly on purpose. If anything, there is incentive not to (i.e. contract bonuses, stock for FA, job security, etc) |
I get how it's better for the players... I'm arguing for the franchise.
If the players fought harder during the regular season, I'd have more of a sentimental attachment to them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
foshowtime
Star Player
Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 4448
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | HOF Rookie wrote: | | Tark the Shark wrote: | | diamondcutter wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | diamondcutter wrote: |
I'm baffled that this is even a debate. Losing two 1st round draft picks in 2017 and 2019 is not worth a few meaningless wins.
|
I am baffled that someone thinks that winning some games at the end of the season means we lose two first round picks. It is a lottery, we either get lucky or we don't. Sure we could get more chances if we lost more games. I can buy one Superlotto ticket and have certain odds to win. Or I could buy 1,000 tickets and have better odds. Does that mean I win if I buy 1,000 and lose if I buy 1? No, it means I am a dumbass to spend $1,000 on Superlotto. |
And I'm baffled that someone doesn't understand the value of improving their odds of winning the NBA Draft Lottery by finishing with with the 2nd worst record vs. the 3rd worst record. Simple math. 55.0%>47.8%. It's not a guarantee of course, but it's still improved odds. There's no logical argument against the math.
Past management has put us in a position where we are being forced to win a top 3 spot in the 2017 lottery to keep two 1st round picks in 2017 and 2019. No one is forcing you to play Super Lotto. But since you tried to using gambling as analogy, I'll do the same. If you decide to go to Vegas to gamble, you're goal is win money. You do this by beating the house. Every game is slated so that the house wins in the long run. That said, certain games have better odds. If you're trying to win money, would you rather play Keno (which has a 25-29% house advantage) or Black Jack (which has 0.28% house advantage). The wisest person doesn't play at all, but since we are being forced to play the lottery, I would choose the game with the best odds. |
Don't mind him. He got his doctorate from the Jim Buss school of stats. |
People really dislike math around here. |
It isn't math, it is chance. Math is finite, a+b always equals c. Math would dictate that the 3rd worst record would get the 3rd pick. Chance tells us differently. People really don't understand math around here. |
Statistics is math. Period.
Logically and mathematically losing was better. You have philosophical and emotional reasons for prefering to win. Thats fine. But, there is no arguing against math or claiming that math is not math.
_________________
Llluuukkkeee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| foshowtime wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | HOF Rookie wrote: | | Tark the Shark wrote: | | diamondcutter wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | diamondcutter wrote: |
I'm baffled that this is even a debate. Losing two 1st round draft picks in 2017 and 2019 is not worth a few meaningless wins.
|
I am baffled that someone thinks that winning some games at the end of the season means we lose two first round picks. It is a lottery, we either get lucky or we don't. Sure we could get more chances if we lost more games. I can buy one Superlotto ticket and have certain odds to win. Or I could buy 1,000 tickets and have better odds. Does that mean I win if I buy 1,000 and lose if I buy 1? No, it means I am a dumbass to spend $1,000 on Superlotto. |
And I'm baffled that someone doesn't understand the value of improving their odds of winning the NBA Draft Lottery by finishing with with the 2nd worst record vs. the 3rd worst record. Simple math. 55.0%>47.8%. It's not a guarantee of course, but it's still improved odds. There's no logical argument against the math.
Past management has put us in a position where we are being forced to win a top 3 spot in the 2017 lottery to keep two 1st round picks in 2017 and 2019. No one is forcing you to play Super Lotto. But since you tried to using gambling as analogy, I'll do the same. If you decide to go to Vegas to gamble, you're goal is win money. You do this by beating the house. Every game is slated so that the house wins in the long run. That said, certain games have better odds. If you're trying to win money, would you rather play Keno (which has a 25-29% house advantage) or Black Jack (which has 0.28% house advantage). The wisest person doesn't play at all, but since we are being forced to play the lottery, I would choose the game with the best odds. |
Don't mind him. He got his doctorate from the Jim Buss school of stats. |
People really dislike math around here. |
It isn't math, it is chance. Math is finite, a+b always equals c. Math would dictate that the 3rd worst record would get the 3rd pick. Chance tells us differently. People really don't understand math around here. |
Statistics is math. Period.
Logically and mathematically losing was better. You have philosophical and emotional reasons for prefering to win. Thats fine. But, there is no arguing against math or claiming that math is not math. |
Technically it's probability, not statistics  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
foshowtime
Star Player
Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 4448
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pjiddy wrote: | As many as four or five guys in next year's draft could go #1 in this year's. If we "lose" our picks, think of it as trading this year's #4-#6 plus 2019's late teens/early 20s pick for a top pick in 2018's more loaded draft.
Would you trade
Jackson/Tatum/Fox/Monk (2017 pick) + Guy you hope is a solid bench player (2019 pick) for Ayton/Porter/Doncic/Bamba (2018)?
I'd be fine with that. |
While that may be true. We may not be this BAD next year. Since we already suffered through this year and did the work. Lets just get it done now.
_________________
Llluuukkkeee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
foshowtime
Star Player
Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 4448
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sentient Meat wrote: | | 2019 wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | | 2019 wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | The difference between having the 2nd spot vs the 3rd spot is roughly the difference between owning the Casino that has a roulette wheel and being the player choosing Red or Black.
Sure it's possible you can win as a player but I'd much rather have the house's odds.
It really concerns me about the new direction of the franchise that we are ignoring simple math and putting our faith in karmic justice. |
Lou- Traded
Deng- sent home
Mozzy- benched
Calderon- waived
Celo- traded
Swaggy- benched
Ingram- limiting mins
We've done everything we can to move the guys (aka vets) who were helping us win or the guys who do the little things that gave us a better chance to win. It's damn obvious that the FO took the necessary steps to make this team weaker.
Maybe that's karmic justice for trying to tank.
The only other thing to do is play the end of bench guys 40 mins and as someone who had a block of 16 games this year, has gone to the last 2 and is going tomorrow night, it's incredibly hard to actually fathom the idea of a FO benching 20 year olds. They've got a duty to keep fans interested and engaged. It' easy to sit at home and do talkathon simulation but once you're in the arena and in the action, never can or should a FO or coach take tanking that far.
Did I really care if we won those games.. no. Kinda hoped we'd end up with the bette odds in the lotto. In fact, we were pretty close to get #1 odds. But if a franchise took it that far where they were sitting 20 year kids in attempts to lose, it's a terrible look. |
Agree the front office did what they could however even if they couldn't explicitly say to tank... why play the player most affected by the drafting of Lonzo Ball during crunch time? I sat through over fifty games watching every single minute until it became clear there was no way they were getting the eighth seed. At that point, with two draft picks at stake... it doesn't take a genius to understand at the executive level or at the coaching level what needed to be done. They could have tried to win games when there was a two game cushion, but once they tied Phoenix it became absolutely moronic to win. Popovich rests players when he needs to prepare for the playoffs... trying to win when you have two draft picks at stake is pure stupidity. If executives don't like what's happening on the court, then ban protected picks or change the draft rules. |
You missed the point--- we're not trying to win. At the same time, we're not sitting 19-21 year old kids and playing lotto busts in order to lose. Who here really thought we'd beat Memphis or SA? I certainly didn't.
Besides, we've got 2 games left and I can pretty much guarantee GS is going to want to spank us. NO is not playing AD and DMC which makes it tough to lose that game but DLO isn't playing and Ingram is on mins restrictions.
Phx has one game left tonight against Sac and we have our 2. We need to lose both and they need to win their one. Seems unlikely... |
Losing is not like winning... if you want to lose you can unless the other team scored zero points. It shows either incompetence on the side of the coaching staff and management that we started winning when we had the 2nd pick locked up... or complete lack of basketball IQ or team play for those players not to lose for the betterment of the franchise.
I don't like that the draft is designed this way, and would be perfectly happy if they implemented rules to prevent this in the future... but until they do, it is naivete or stupidity to win in this situation. Considering we got rid of supposedly incompetent management team who were able to tank successfully, it certainly doesn't instill confidence that our new team has possibly failed to achieve its first important objective.
All this being said, I will still be hoping for the best... but am irritated that they don't seem to be playing this intelligently. |
You have to play the game with the rules that it has.
_________________
Llluuukkkeee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
foshowtime
Star Player
Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 4448
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sentient Meat wrote: | | TooMuchMajicBuss wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: | | tox wrote: | ^ Popovich rests players in service of their own ambitions. Tim Duncan wanted to win more championships, which is why he was fine resting in the regular season knowing fully well that this will help them in the postseason.
You are asking to shut down the young players in service of drafting a new franchise savior (and potentially their replacement).
There's a difference. |
If they did their respective jobs in the first place, they wouldn't have been in that position |
Which is why development time is important. One reason that learning to play decent fundamental basketball means more to some people than getting another promising but raw rookie. These guys are competitors. They're not looking for Ball to come in and save them. They want to be the guy to save the franchise. And some of them are just as capable of doing it as Ball. Can't develop when you're messing up on purpose to shave points or throw a game. |
I spent 50 to 60 games rooting my heart out for this bunch only to see them continuously collapse under the pressure of the fourth quarter. Do I care that they win a few meaningless games during the season's equivalent of junk time? Not really. They had their chance to shine when it really mattered and all of them (bleep) the bed. If you exclude the 10 and 10 start and the winning streak, this season has been catastrophic. I would've been perfectly happy with a decent run for the eighth seed but all they demonstrated was that they were a team deserving of the 1,2 or 3 pick. Maybe they'll play with the necessary sense of urgency knowing that Ball could be taking their place in the lineup if he's actually sitting on our bench. |
_________________
Llluuukkkeee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
foshowtime
Star Player
Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 4448
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | TooMuchMajicBuss wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: |
Losing is not like winning... if you want to lose you can unless the other team scored zero points. It shows either incompetence on the side of the coaching staff and management that we started winning when we had the 2nd pick locked up... or complete lack of basketball IQ or team play for those players not to lose for the betterment of the franchise.
I don't like that the draft is designed this way, and would be perfectly happy if they implemented rules to prevent this in the future... but until they do, it is naivete or stupidity to win in this situation. Considering we got rid of supposedly incompetent management team who were able to tank successfully, it certainly doesn't instill confidence that our new team has possibly failed to achieve its first important objective.
All this being said, I will still be hoping for the best... but am irritated that they don't seem to be playing this intelligently. |
No - we did not have the 2nd pick locked up.
And you seriously want these players to walk out on the court and lose on purpose for the betterment of the franchise? Go ahead and tell DLO, Ingram, Randle and Zubac that their own integrity doesn't matter, and their own betterment for the betterment of the franchise does not compare to shutting down and playing fake basketball so Ball or Fultz can waltz in and make them winners. |
And also take the job of one of those tanking players. Players and coaches don't tank, that is one of the sillier ideas here. |
Players. No. Coach. Yes.
_________________
Llluuukkkeee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
foshowtime
Star Player
Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 4448
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | foshowtime wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | HOF Rookie wrote: | | Tark the Shark wrote: | | diamondcutter wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | diamondcutter wrote: |
I'm baffled that this is even a debate. Losing two 1st round draft picks in 2017 and 2019 is not worth a few meaningless wins.
|
I am baffled that someone thinks that winning some games at the end of the season means we lose two first round picks. It is a lottery, we either get lucky or we don't. Sure we could get more chances if we lost more games. I can buy one Superlotto ticket and have certain odds to win. Or I could buy 1,000 tickets and have better odds. Does that mean I win if I buy 1,000 and lose if I buy 1? No, it means I am a dumbass to spend $1,000 on Superlotto. |
And I'm baffled that someone doesn't understand the value of improving their odds of winning the NBA Draft Lottery by finishing with with the 2nd worst record vs. the 3rd worst record. Simple math. 55.0%>47.8%. It's not a guarantee of course, but it's still improved odds. There's no logical argument against the math.
Past management has put us in a position where we are being forced to win a top 3 spot in the 2017 lottery to keep two 1st round picks in 2017 and 2019. No one is forcing you to play Super Lotto. But since you tried to using gambling as analogy, I'll do the same. If you decide to go to Vegas to gamble, you're goal is win money. You do this by beating the house. Every game is slated so that the house wins in the long run. That said, certain games have better odds. If you're trying to win money, would you rather play Keno (which has a 25-29% house advantage) or Black Jack (which has 0.28% house advantage). The wisest person doesn't play at all, but since we are being forced to play the lottery, I would choose the game with the best odds. |
Don't mind him. He got his doctorate from the Jim Buss school of stats. |
People really dislike math around here. |
It isn't math, it is chance. Math is finite, a+b always equals c. Math would dictate that the 3rd worst record would get the 3rd pick. Chance tells us differently. People really don't understand math around here. |
Statistics is math. Period.
Logically and mathematically losing was better. You have philosophical and emotional reasons for prefering to win. Thats fine. But, there is no arguing against math or claiming that math is not math. |
Technically it's probability, not statistics |
Just looked it up. Statistics is described as a branch of mathematics. I believe in most colleges its also under mathematics lol
_________________
Llluuukkkeee |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| foshowtime wrote: | | tox wrote: | | foshowtime wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: |
It isn't math, it is chance. Math is finite, a+b always equals c. Math would dictate that the 3rd worst record would get the 3rd pick. Chance tells us differently. People really don't understand math around here. |
Statistics is math. Period.
Logically and mathematically losing was better. You have philosophical and emotional reasons for prefering to win. Thats fine. But, there is no arguing against math or claiming that math is not math. |
Technically it's probability, not statistics |
Just looked it up. Statistics is described as a branch of mathematics. I believe in most colleges its also under mathematics lol |
Umm yeah. But talking about our chances of keeping the pick isn't statistics; it's probability. They're not the same. I was just being pedantic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TooMuchMajicBuss
Franchise Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Posts: 21079
Location: In a white room, with black curtains near the station
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| foshowtime wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | HOF Rookie wrote: | | Tark the Shark wrote: | | diamondcutter wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | diamondcutter wrote: |
I'm baffled that this is even a debate. Losing two 1st round draft picks in 2017 and 2019 is not worth a few meaningless wins.
|
I am baffled that someone thinks that winning some games at the end of the season means we lose two first round picks. It is a lottery, we either get lucky or we don't. Sure we could get more chances if we lost more games. I can buy one Superlotto ticket and have certain odds to win. Or I could buy 1,000 tickets and have better odds. Does that mean I win if I buy 1,000 and lose if I buy 1? No, it means I am a dumbass to spend $1,000 on Superlotto. |
And I'm baffled that someone doesn't understand the value of improving their odds of winning the NBA Draft Lottery by finishing with with the 2nd worst record vs. the 3rd worst record. Simple math. 55.0%>47.8%. It's not a guarantee of course, but it's still improved odds. There's no logical argument against the math.
Past management has put us in a position where we are being forced to win a top 3 spot in the 2017 lottery to keep two 1st round picks in 2017 and 2019. No one is forcing you to play Super Lotto. But since you tried to using gambling as analogy, I'll do the same. If you decide to go to Vegas to gamble, you're goal is win money. You do this by beating the house. Every game is slated so that the house wins in the long run. That said, certain games have better odds. If you're trying to win money, would you rather play Keno (which has a 25-29% house advantage) or Black Jack (which has 0.28% house advantage). The wisest person doesn't play at all, but since we are being forced to play the lottery, I would choose the game with the best odds. |
Don't mind him. He got his doctorate from the Jim Buss school of stats. |
People really dislike math around here. |
It isn't math, it is chance. Math is finite, a+b always equals c. Math would dictate that the 3rd worst record would get the 3rd pick. Chance tells us differently. People really don't understand math around here. |
Statistics is math. Period.
Logically and mathematically losing was better. You have philosophical and emotional reasons for prefering to win. Thats fine. But, there is no arguing against math or claiming that math is not math. |
Partial equations make for bad math. You consider the lottery result to be the only thing that matters. It isn't.
Young players improving their fundamentals. That matters as much or more than getting the players in the first place. Learning to stretch the floor from the 4 position. Getting more aggressive. Learning to play within an offense and hit the open shooter. Learning to set pics. Learning to defend at the right distance and communicate better on whether to ice the ball handler or not. These are TANGIBLE benefits of playing to win whether it's early or late in the season, and many of these improvements to the games for DLO, Ingram, Randle, Clarkson, and Nance are coming later than sooner.
But if you want to stick with Draft Odds Only - what are the odds the number 10 pick in the stacked 2018 draft ends up being a better player than Ball, Fultz or our number 3 from this year? You can't say it's likely, but you can't say it's remote either. Filter that out, you don't have a complete analysis do you?
Nonetheless, the closer we get to 50/50 odds on a population size of one single result, the closer we get to random. You cannot predict the outcome with any confidence on this, nor can you predict the benefit with any certainty. Like it or not, there's a lot of luck involved when you forget to factor out reality so you can boil it down to 'math.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WeDidItReddit
Star Player
Joined: 10 May 2015
Posts: 1087
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Numbers without context are just numbers. Events in the past don't affect numbers in the future in this case. If the lottery was played over and over again the law of averages would mean that in the end the percentages would average out to the true population proportion, aka P. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TooMuchMajicBuss
Franchise Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Posts: 21079
Location: In a white room, with black curtains near the station
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| foshowtime wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | TooMuchMajicBuss wrote: | | Sentient Meat wrote: |
Losing is not like winning... if you want to lose you can unless the other team scored zero points. It shows either incompetence on the side of the coaching staff and management that we started winning when we had the 2nd pick locked up... or complete lack of basketball IQ or team play for those players not to lose for the betterment of the franchise.
I don't like that the draft is designed this way, and would be perfectly happy if they implemented rules to prevent this in the future... but until they do, it is naivete or stupidity to win in this situation. Considering we got rid of supposedly incompetent management team who were able to tank successfully, it certainly doesn't instill confidence that our new team has possibly failed to achieve its first important objective.
All this being said, I will still be hoping for the best... but am irritated that they don't seem to be playing this intelligently. |
No - we did not have the 2nd pick locked up.
And you seriously want these players to walk out on the court and lose on purpose for the betterment of the franchise? Go ahead and tell DLO, Ingram, Randle and Zubac that their own integrity doesn't matter, and their own betterment for the betterment of the franchise does not compare to shutting down and playing fake basketball so Ball or Fultz can waltz in and make them winners. |
And also take the job of one of those tanking players. Players and coaches don't tank, that is one of the sillier ideas here. |
Players. No. Coach. Yes. |
To the point of making absolutely sure the Lakers lose every game? No. Not even coaches. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
