Tanking For Draft Position Is A Terrible Idea (Even In The NBA)
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 2, 2011 7:00 AM EST
in Draft
Email
Print
There's an old adage I'm fond of; for every complex problem, there is a solution simple, neat and wrong. There's been quiet talk of the (draft) benefits of losing. Ken Meringolo has been preaching blood and thunder at Hogs Haven about rooting for losses while Eric Bickel takes a more measured approach to the subject.
Now you could (and should) point out quite rightly that the NBA is not the NFL. Bickel concedes the far greater impact individual players can have in basketball. But that's also why the NBA instituted the draft lottery, to mitigate the effects of tanking. So when Cedric Jackson hits a last second three pointer to send us from third in the lottery down to fifth in the final game of regular season play, the Wizards can still end up with John Wall.
Bickel also makes an excellent point when he says selecting higher is certainly preferential to picking lower, but no guarantee of success. This is again less true in the NBA, but don't tell that to the Atlanta Hawks, who drafted Marvin Williams #2 after Andrew Bogut, yet before Deron Williams and Chris Paul. Danny Ainge's draft and trade machinations should remind everyone that once your franchise guy is in place, a great GM can make it rain. I'll leave it to you in the comments to argue about whether or not EG is that guy. I believe he's making a case for it, but the day's not over, as they say.
It's Bickel's 8th NFL Myth that concerns me most:
8 - There is no such thing as learning how to win.
Ask any coach if a player or a team needs to learn how to win. My guess is 100% of them will tell you it’s mandatory. Wins just don’t fall into your lap. You don’t just load your team with talent and the championships will come. How did that work for the Philadelphia Eagles this year? How many times did the Redskins win the off-season Super Bowl only to have the team implode because the pieces didn’t fit and the team didn’t know how to win? Only 1 team in recent history has had a miraculous one season turnaround and that was the St. Louis Rams in 1999. They hadn’t won more than 7 games in 9 years. And it wasn’t a high draft pick that turned them around. It was an undrafted free agent grocery bagger named Kurt Warner that did it.
Again, you could argue that learning to win as a team is more an NFL thing, the complexity of the fiendishly complex coaching schemes involved (especially from team-to-team) prevents those expensively talented players from meshing as a unit, especially coming from different backgrounds. But I'm going back to an earlier argument: where NBA players have a far greater immediate impact when they're on the floor, when we talked about how draft picks are more impactful on the franchise as a whole, because that's absolutely true. When those young guys are playing, they're learning. Those talented players are on the floor at least 80% of the time and what they learn to do in the NBA they continue to do in the NBA. What happens when they learn to lose?
It's hard not to eye draft lottery odds when our respective team is eliminated from playoff contention and in the back corner of our minds we become secretly ok with losing. But screw the draft order. I want our team to win any way it can, barring injury. As Ken said, there are no good losses, no moral victories. You could also say no moral victories is an NFL thing. We want to see Wizards rookies get more burn, but even moreso in the NBA than the NFL, what Matt Terl said rings true:
Seems to me that when a guy has proven that his upside outweighs his liability, he plays. That simple.
But with more games, and therefore more games that have to be played past the point of playoff or draft relevance, don't the rest become meaningless in terms of winning and losing? Maybe, but there's more to contend with than just playoff and draft relevance. A team has to believe in itself, has to know it can win, and if that is more by player in the NBA, that's fine. They still have trust the guys around them to help them achieve those wins, or you end up with a sulking Lebron, an indignant Dwight. Those guys can't do it all, but when the clutch hits they haven't learned how to win. John Wall and the Wizards are going to the playoffs, and whatever the team looks like, I want our guys to be channeling a mix of Nike and Charlie Sheen; Winning Never Stops.
If nothing else I've said makes an impact, this question should: is there a difference between playing to win and playing not to lose? The truth of that answer should be all the argument you need.
67 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
NBA championships in general are won by top draft picks. Suck well, Suck Long, Suck Lucky.
There are few NBA champs that lacked these top picks. And in most cases they win with the team that drafted them.
There’s the Detroit Larry Brown exception, in a year when the opponent’s top stars were feuding with each other. There’s last year’s Mavs, with a team assembled by a billionaire using the best advanced metrics that could be developed, that also benefited by a mental meltdown of the opponent’s best player. And there’s the recent Celtic example assembled by Danny Ainge.
This last is an exception that reinforces the rule: Ainge tried his darnedest to suck his way into a top pick, and after years of the strategy was only able to assemble enough talent to package a trade for a disgruntled superstar (KG, also the best talent in his draft class, drafted as the last of the under-the-radar prep-to-pro prospects, and still taken top 5). But the talent was stockpiled for a (basically) plausible trade.
Players can’t tank. Coaches can’t try to teach losing. But organizations can institutionally tank by drafting depth of talent at a position instead of taking a player at a position of need. (See Booker/Singleton/Vesely)
In the NBA the adage ‘Good is the enemy of Great’ is an absolute truth. Too many teams succeed only at preserving a stultifying mediocrity. Years of 1st round playoff exits do little to improve their chances at a ring. In the NFL first you win, then you get good. In the NBA that only works if you have sufficient talent.
There’s no 6th round in the NBA. No Tom Brady. Pro scouts keep their eye on 6th graders. In the Euroleague junior circuit.
When you have the opportunity to suck well, in the right year, when a game-changing talent is available, you don’t squander it by trying to assemble a pretty good team with whatever scraps are available in the free agent market. Especially since bad contracts are a durable legacy. You save your powder, play your youngsters, develop experience, add character, add depth, add percentage points to probability in the form of ping pong balls. And hope you suck lucky,
by doclinkin on Dec 2, 2011 7:45 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
Like this line...good observation.
But organizations can institutionally tank by drafting depth of talent at a position instead of taking a player at a position of need. (See Booker/Singleton/Vesely)
I have a hard time agreeing with any of these arguments
Could not agree less re: Ainge:
This last is an exception that reinforces the ruleAinge was swinging deals for players left and right trying to build something that resembled a contender while choosing his draft picks with the Midas touch. Fans in Boston were demanding a contender and he wasn’t making the kind of dissonant moves that constitute insitutional tanking.
Using the Wizards as a point of institutional tanking seems particularly ridiculous. We shouldn’t have drafted Book because we already had James Singleton backing up Blatche? We shouldn’t have drafted Singleton because we already drafted Vesely and had Lewis? Even if we use that exploit beloved of politicians and cast our gaze backwards supposing the following:
- PF was locked up in 2010
- SF was locked up in 2011
- PG was of course locked up in 2010
- Between NY and JC, SG was locked up in 2011
- Thus we can see some kind of need to draft a dominant Center in both years (depends on your faith in Javale), a SG in 2010 (depends on your faith in Nick), and a SF in 2010 (depends on your faith in Josh Howard at the time)
- SG in 2010 at or after 23? Maybe Dominique Jones, we ended up with Jordan Crawford anyway…but Trevor Booker’s status as a tweener also indicated a hedge against Josh Howard’s help.
- Other SF prospects at or after 23…Quincy Pondexter who I wouldn’t have argued against at the time (though in hindsight), and Landry Fields is listed as a SF, so there’s that.
- As far as Center prospects at or after 23 in the 2010 draft…I’m very happy with Hamady N’Diaye, and as far as last year’s Center crop, if we had drafted one I’d have been screaming. Vucevic was the closest thing, he was nowhere near the #6 and was gone by #19.
- Backup PG was pretty much the only thing besides perhaps a 3rd big man the Wiz needed after that and we drafted Shelvin Mack. How does any of this say tanking?
Good is the enemy of Great’ is an absolute truth.This is one sneaky line. It’s true to a point, but does nothing to support your argument or address mine. I am not advocating for mediocrity or playoff hell, that’s quite the lame duck supposition. And teams have to become good
There’s no 6th round in the NBA. No Tom Brady. Pro scouts keep their eye on 6th graders. In the Euroleague junior circuit.Addressed earlier, I assumed it did not need repeating:
Now you could (and should) point out quite rightly that the NBA is not the NFL. Bickel concedes the far greater impact individual players can have in basketball. But that’s also why the NBA instituted the draft lottery, to mitigate the effects of tanking.This is more to the point:
When you have the opportunity to suck well, in the right year, when a game-changing talent is available, you don’t squander it by trying to assemble a pretty good team with whatever scraps are available in the free agent market. Especially since bad contracts are a durable legacy.Who is suggesting not tanking for draft position = going Snyder on the FA market? The problem is that I don’t see these points:
play your youngsters, develop experience, add character, add depthWhich the Wizards are doing (I could use a little more youth playing time, of course, and will be looking hard for it), as married to the notion that it will:
add percentage points to probability in the form of ping pong ballsOf course, it’s funny we’re not sitting on opposite sides of the Berlin Wall here. I think I might sum up your position by suggesting James Harden is the Thunder’s sine qua non, while I’m of the opinion that I’ll take the losses but I’d rather have the wins, even to the point of mediocrity, provided it’s the young players that are doing it. Maybe that leads to a Cavaliers kind of stagnation, maybe not, I don’t know. Rook has talked about being contaminated by losing cultures, Al Jefferson being the case study. The Thunder have the time to truly excel (at least by the end of Harden’s rookie contract, I think). Maybe Harden will be the guy that gets them over the hump. Or maybe they’d have been better served by finding how to win those ‘fourth quarter games’, as Scott Brooks put it. But as Kevin Ewoldt surmised at the end of the Grant Paulsen/Rich Campbell debate:
Obviously hind-sight is 20-20, which makes this debate near un-winnable.
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 2, 2011 9:01 AM EST up reply actions
"Is there a difference between playing to win and playing not to lose? " is the wrong question.
The question is: How much winning is enough?
Is it enough to simply make the playoffs? Or nearly make them? Or win a few games in the first round? Or do you hope to contend for a championship. Do you have the fantesticle fortitude to endure a few bad seasons to stockpile the right assets.
I understand the urge for impatience, I understand that a true fan wants their team to win every game. I’m empathetic that a Wizards fan can get all Bickle’d up over an impassioned screed by a local radio jockey and his take on an irrelevant sport. But personally I’m greedy. We’ve had first round flame-outs here. They only ultimately leave me unsatisfied. I want confetti parades and bragging rights.
This team as currently constituted does not have enough of the right parts to do real damage in the playoffs. Even with maturity and experience this team is missing critical pieces that exist on any past champion.
With cock-eyed optimism I could pretend that our players all mature, develop, maximize their considerable talents and ‘learn to win’. I could pretend that we ‘mature and develop’ (etc) better than every other team in the league does. You could make the case that the upside of our talent far exceeds that of other teams in the league. (A backhanded compliment, essentially, that we underachieve far more than other teams based on accomplishment vs raw talent (*)).
As I read it though, even then we’d still lack the pieces necessary to seal the deal.
Depth. Roleplayers. Complimentary stars. Dominant two-way players. Instinctive winners with will to win at all positions. A winning match-up in all five spots on the floor. Chemistry mesh between system and talent, coach and players. We’re missing all of the above, with one possible exception. Johnny Ballgame.
((* Our best hope for a ‘dominant two-way big’ has proved stubbornly resistant to common sense. He’d prefer to be an ‘evolutionary’ perimeter based center. I watched every available clip of footage of the Nike Real Run or his various HAX LA runs. Or the Impact Athletics ‘Lockout League’. And as usual JaVale’s hardwired reflexes send him drifting away from the interior, shying away from contact, uninterested in his fundamental role. Not saying that will never change. But, ther’s an open question how much it will change, how fast, and will he even be on the team by the time it develops. You know, he’s no Tim Duncan. And Flip’s no Pop. I have my doubts is all)).
Thing is there are few enough ways to land those players. You can a) be better researched, better prepared, better scouted, smarter than your competition; b) live in a destination Brand Name city for free agents; c) stockpile assets for trade or proper chemistry mix.
Personally I don’t want to dam off any stream that floats those players to us. I’m willing to be patient. I’m able to compartmentalize my frustration with all the athletic Suck in the nation’s Capitol and take a long view. I’d rather win a championship than squander an opportunity to suck our way into a good player.
You negate your own post by admitting that the NFL and NBA are different beasts. And dismiss it far too blithely. The NBA gives you fifteen roster spots. Guaranteed contracts, lasting many years. Five players on the floor at any one time, playing both offense and defense. The best players on your team play upwards of 35 of 48 minutes and touch the ball on every possession.
The margin of victory in the average NBA game is less than two possessions (less than 6 points). Tighter than that even in the post-season. The winningest team in the league is simply shaving percentage points on one (1) (single) (solitary) trip up and down the court. In one offense/defense possession: did you make him miss, get the board and get up a good shot? Championship. Ultimately looking we’re talking tenths of a percentage point separating the best teams. Shaving probability and percentage points in your favor.
It makes sense to shade probability in your favor in the Draft as well, in any year that it’s plausible to do so, and any year when it’s worth doing.
This upcoming draft has a few potential game changers for this franchise. Good chemistry fits. Almost every year has at least one ideal fit for a championship roster (in one role or another) but this year has a few possibles. Still ultimately championships are generally won by the consensus best player in a given draft. That’s the most well-worn path.
Is it enough to simply make the playoffs? Or nearly make them? Or win a few games in the first round? Or do you hope to contend for a championship. Do you have the fantesticle fortitude to endure a few bad seasons to stockpile the right assets.
From earlier:
I am not advocating for mediocrity or playoff hell, that’s quite the lame duck supposition. And teams have to become good before they become great. There seems to be some notion that we can remain high in the lottery then charge out of the gate like Secretariat in 1973, get good in one year and be great the next. My concern is that if the team does not learn to win soon they may not learn at all.
We’ve had first round flame-outs here. They only ultimately leave me unsatisfied. I want confetti parades and bragging rights.Why must you get me pumped up? And I am playing devil’s advocate (my preferred role), to an extent:
With cock-eyed optimism I could pretend that our players all mature, develop, maximize their considerable talents and ‘learn to win’From another comment in this thread:
I am increasingly frustrated by fan sentiment wanting to see a losing seasons through next year. The idea that some are ok with the idea of the Wizards doing nothing and racking up lottery pick after lottery pick is appealing only in a vaccuum, and what I’m attempting to do here is to take that idea OUT of the vaccuumWhile that’s probably too harsh an estimation, and while the idea of the team succeeding as currently constructed is remote, to be kind, if it SHOULD become competitive I can imagine the grumbling, and as much as I can endure losing patiently (I somewhat resent the affront to fortitude there…I’m a Redskins fan too, I mean, Jesus), I’m supremely annoyed at the thought that if our guys should do well against all expectation, there would be grumbling (god, what a mess of a sentence).
Re: Javale…yeah :/
Personally I don’t want to dam off any stream that floats those players to us. I’m willing to be patient. I’m able to compartmentalize my frustration with all the athletic Suck in the nation’s Capitol and take a long view. I’d rather win a championship than squander an opportunity to suck our way into a good player.I agree. The differences between the NBA and NFL necessitate wildly different plans, and the plan for a non-destination city is draft and stockpile while building with an eye towards contention.
You negate your own post by admitting that the NFL and NBA are different beasts. And dismiss it far too blithely.Talking about the differences between the NBA and NFL could take up thousands of words while hardly trying. I address this specifically within the context of the argument:
Again, you could argue that learning to win as a team is more an NFL thing, the complexity of the fiendishly complex coaching schemes involved (especially from team-to-team) prevents those expensively talented players from meshing as a unit, especially coming from different backgrounds. But I’m going back to an earlier argument: where NBA players have a far greater immediate impact when they’re on the floor, when we talked about how draft picks are more impactful on the franchise as a whole, because that’s absolutely true.The points that you went on to reference after supposing I negated the argument are already referenced and integrated into said argument. Talking about shading probability and percentage points in your favor by effort in sports and draft odds is a false parallel. There is nothing connecting the two aside from ‘a better chance is better’. And while I have to agree (even in my devil’s advocate) role, that the right draft pick could mean everything to this team, I’d rather have the guys we do have turn the corner.
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 3, 2011 11:23 AM EST up reply actions
Agree with your assessment of the importance and the difficulty of solving this problem
‘dominant two-way big’…. there are few enough ways to land those players. You can a) be better researched, better prepared, better scouted, smarter than your competition; b) live in a destination Brand Name city for free agents; c) stockpile assets for trade or proper chemistry mix. Personally I don’t want to dam off any stream that floats those players to us.
You left out d) take a swing for the fences with a player that seems flawed and come away with a home run. Some examples of bigs who were written off for whatever reason that turned out to be diamonds in the rough: Ben Wallace (short), Rasheed Wallace (attitude), Marcus Camby (injury history), Tyson Chandler (injury history). Of course, there’s a much, much longer list of players that turned out to be steaming piles of crap. Our FA contestants this year: Greg Oden, Yi, amnesty candidates like Biedrins, Darko, and Thabeet. I would sign any of these likely-worse-than-useless-but-hey-you-never-know guys if we can do it without screwing up our cap situation.
That said.
Winning alone can help change a franchise into ‘b) a destination Brand Name city’ that attracts free agents or players who force a trade.
That part of your argument makes sense. DC ought to have a better chance than Oklahoma City on that score. Or San Antonio. Or Utah. No matter how much these teams win I suspect you won’t see free agents fighting to land there. DC has more going for it in many respects.
And some part of the argument towards changing our Brand requires that we reverse a longstanding perception of Warshington as a losing franchise. With fickle uninterested fans, and nit-picky radio hosts.
I'm just saying to durably change the Brand name, you need to become a dynasty.
Win championships. And to do that you need the kind of primary talent that we’re only likely to land via luck.
Definitely
the path with the best odds
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 3, 2011 11:24 AM EST up reply actions
Perhaps the word, “tank” throws people off a bit. It has an aura of intentionality about it. How about instead: “lose.” The theory being: “you must lose in order to win.” This proposes not an infallible rule, but it is rather a lesson which tends to be true. There are exceptions, of course: if you are the Lakers or Celtics; or you receive a player like Pau Gasol in exchange for a tomato (still the Lakers); or you are looking for a point guard and Steve Nash happens to be there in the teens. The traditionally great teams can sign (and even trade for) great free agent talent — but we are the Wizards. We cannot.
So that leaves the draft for us. And, in order to draft great talent, you must lose. John Wall is probably proof of this.
The fact that there are more less than great players drafted low than great players drafted low is a flaw in the logic. Great players are almost always drafted low. So, whether you tank intentionally, or are lucky enough to be just bad enough to obtain a low draft pick, you still need to come across low draft picks, somehow, in order to become talented enough to be in a position to become a winner.
I will never argue that losing is not a prerequisite of rebuilding
The fact that there are more less than great players drafted low than great players drafted low is a flaw in the logic. Great players are almost always drafted low.
As I quoted above:
selecting higher is certainly preferential to picking lower, but no guarantee of successABSOLUTELY:
you still need to come across low draft picks, somehowOnce the rebuilding process nets you your guy, start crafting your contender. Don’t rush (i.e. go Snyder on the FA market), but never risk sending the message that every game isn’t worth winning.
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 2, 2011 9:29 AM EST up reply actions
Concur with regard to creating a winning culture.
Then you would wholeheartedly agree with me that we must ship Sir Blatche out of town, as quickly as possible, along with a salami sandwich or whatever it takes.
I'm a dreamer
Giving him one more year to make good…
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 2, 2011 10:00 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
This is Basketball, man, not a seven-step program! Even if his name IS 7-day Dray…
by Tbonebullets on Dec 2, 2011 10:38 AM EST up reply actions
Looking at it
the same way I looked at Malcolm Kelly and Devin Thomas (though Dray is comparatively better than both…which is why six seasons in he’s got some slack left from me), I’m at peace with he’ll do it this year…or not.
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 2, 2011 10:57 AM EST up reply actions
What may make this year different is that Blatche will be pushed...
in practice and on the court by Kevin Seraphin, whose game has made HUGE strides over the past six months. Over the past season and a half, once Antawn Jamison had departed the scene, Blatche (contract extension in hand) has tended to see himself as The Wizards Big Man in the Frontcourt. The media have tended to reinforce him in this respect.
This is the last wake-up call he is going to get.
Really interested to see what strides Seraphin made
with Caja Laboral that he can translate to the NBA scene
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 2, 2011 1:58 PM EST up reply actions
Compare draft picks, trades and FA signings
It seems that GMs are much more active in making trades of established players and signing free agents, than in the trading of, or for, draft picks.
I suspect the reason for this is that they don’t have any confidence in which draft picks will be good. However, that’s not a good excuse for a team like the Wizards. We have immediate and obvious deficiencies in shooting and defensive rebounding. What good did our 6, 18 and 34 picks do to address these deficiencies?
I don’t think the Wizards should tank. But they should have a plan that gives them a very high probability of getting what they need when they go into a draft. If the current GM can’t figure that out, there are plenty of other people who can.
Looking at next year’s draft, they will need a top 5 pick to be confident of getting one of their weaknesses addressed adequately. I guess that they will have to address the other weakness in the 2012 FA sweepstakes.
But they ought to to be working now on getting at least a top 5 pick in the next draft (assuming that they win 28 of 66 games and not automatically get a top 5 pick without doing anything).
I'd say it's also an estimation of how valued draft picks are
We have immediate and obvious deficiencies in shooting and defensive rebounding. What good did our 6, 18 and 34 picks do to address these deficiencies?
By the numbers:
- At the 6, the first non-PG shooter was Jimmer. No thank you. Defensive rebounding…Bismack is going to be the question there…but with zero offensive ability, and having no offensive Center (Seraphin??) could we really put him on the floor with all the pressure on John/Nick/Insert SF?
- At the 18, no shooters I was interested in and Singleton definitely looked like BPA…Faried will be a lingering question there, but a defensive rebounding hustle guy or a possibly elite wing stopper?
- At the 34 we already had drafted two SF, didn’t need a SG, no interesting C propsects unless you were intrigued by Jeremy Tyler or Josh Harrelson
The whole thing reminds me of something else Bickel said:
7- Losing at the right times ensures that you can select the best players at your need position.
Wrong. Only one team can ensure or guarantee the player they are targeting will be there when it’s their turn to select- The team with the first pick. After that it’s a crap shoot. Fasten your seat belt. Teams trade up and down and maneuver in and out of spots like Tony Stewart. There is no guarantee your guy will even be where you think he will. So stop thinking you can isolate a coveted player without the top pick.
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 2, 2011 10:18 AM EST up reply actions
Teams for willing to give the Wiz...
…a better seed for the 6, 18 and 34 picks. And if those picks weren’t enough, we could have sweetened the pot. There were two players in that draft that could have helped. Now we have three long shots to cheer for….
Utah was at the 3
and asking for the 6, 18, 34 AND this year’s first…Kahn probably would have wanted all that and Javale…
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 2, 2011 10:54 AM EST up reply actions
Except for the 2012 pick any player would have been on the table to me
6+18+34+ any player not named John Wall (maybe even 2) to land either Kanter or Williams.
Some will say we have Singleton now but he Ernie had no way of knowing he’d fell that far. Look at the 19-30 picks, none of them would have been very helpfull. We got really really lucky to get a top 14 (probably top 10 in this weak draft class) type talenttalent at 18.
Who won? Who lost? Who cares?! The NBA is Back!
David Aldridge
by Dutch Hoopfan on Dec 2, 2011 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
Even with it turning out to be Singleton, I'd still do that trade
Vesely+Singleton+Mack+ one of Crawford, Booker or Javale for Kanter or Williams. I’d do it because in the NBA its about legit core pieces first not role players first (yes I dont think any of them will be more than role players. That’s fine but it’s not a must have)
Who won? Who lost? Who cares?! The NBA is Back!
David Aldridge
by Dutch Hoopfan on Dec 2, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions
That's also why I would trade the farm for Howard
Like I proposed in my fanpost and its why I see most young kids as fire power for next offseason (either to trade up in the draft or a trade for a legit piece)
Talent wins in the NBA and you can find complementary piece after you acquire you’re core 2 or 3 pieces.
Who won? Who lost? Who cares?! The NBA is Back!
David Aldridge
by Dutch Hoopfan on Dec 2, 2011 3:01 PM EST up reply actions
If we save our powder and don't pray DHoward we should play all of our young kids as much as we can. It will benefit us in 2 ways:
This season we’re even younger than last yr with 7 players having just one yr or no experience at all.
1. We get to see what we have in them. Maybe one or two will show they could become a little more than a role player and if anything it drives up their trade value
2. Playing lots of unexperienced players will mean losing more games without actually tanking. The young guns will play their asses off to show what they can do but will make many, many mistakes on D and won’t be an efficient offensive team either. As long as they try hard and dont do goofy stupid shit, I dont mind the losing. Especially not if it nets us a 2012 top 5 pick
Who won? Who lost? Who cares?! The NBA is Back!
David Aldridge
by Dutch Hoopfan on Dec 2, 2011 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think I understand...
But they ought to to be working now on getting at least a top 5 pick in the next draft (assuming that they win 28 of 66 games and not automatically get a top 5 pick without doing anything).
What could they be doing to work on that right now?
by mattiesafer on Dec 2, 2011 10:25 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Figure out a way to move...
….Blatche and possibly others for a good shot at getting a high pick. For example, who are the worst teams in the league this coming year? I would hope we’re talking to them already.
The sad fact is the Wiz would be lucky to win 28 games this year and maybe 40 the following year unless the current mode of operation changes pretty radically.
You probably hate hearing this...
but where does our frontcourt offense come from without him? Wouldn’t all the scoring pressure devolve to John/Nick/Jordan? (Not that Jordan isn’t willing to try…)
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 2, 2011 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I think the hope is that...
It might come more from McGee/Booker/Seraphin/Vesely (at the 4 in a smallball lineup), assuming normal growth patterns. But, like you, I’m open to seeing Dray get one more season. If the light goes on, watch out.
With a number of young players pressing him...
in practice and pushing for precious minutes of game time, we will know soon enough if Blatche can rise to the challenge of consistently being a top-tier player. Over the past two seasons, he has produced enough big games to show us that there is a lot of talent there, so one more year to see if he can find focus is warranted, I think .
In general, the right buzz phrase for the Wizards right now is not “black hole” in the sense that this has been applied to Nick Young and Jordan Crawford, but “black box” in the sense that we really do not know what type of team this interesting package of players is going to become. No question that the Wizards would be kick-ass if Dwight Howard fell into their laps, but I suspect their destiny lies elsewhere. There really is a remarkable amount of depth (or at least equality of potential) and speed in this bunch. And few teams have anyone to compare to John Wall to run the show for the foreseeable future.
Let ’em play a while and then we will have a better idea who to keep and who to package in a deal for more draft choices in the rich June 2012 harvest. Hold onto Lewis for the season and then amnesty him to free up the cash for a major free agent pickup from the rich summer 2011 FA crop.
For the Wizards 2011-12 is a time to test what we have (including our coach and GM) and lay the groundwork for building for the kind of long-run success last seen here in the glory days of the 1970s. It can happen here.
by khrabb on Dec 4, 2011 11:53 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No guarantees in draft
Kwame.
Everyone has talent at this level.
Everyone likes to win.
I think it’s more important to select guys that HATE to lose.
by VBfan on Dec 2, 2011 10:47 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Playing the youngsters for draft position is a GREAT idea.
Simply take out that dirty four letter word – and your argument falls to pieces….
If the Wizards follow the right path – they will stress development, playing time, teaching and “team building”… Winning should be secondary to the primary goal – which is building a team that will contend for years to come. That can not, and will not be done in only one season. If the Wizards play the youngsters – they will lose more games than they win – it’s inevitable. Which means they will at least have better odds at a high draft pick.
Unfortunately – fans (including myself at times) are impatient. We want to watch “winning” teams. We forget that it almost always takes time to build a good team from the foundation up.
If I look back, it still amazes me that our starting line up just a year and a half ago was Antawn Jamison, Caron Butler, Brendan Haywood, Mike Miller, and Randy Foye. All of those players, and more (Arenas, Thornton, Bibby, DeShawn Stevenson, Hinrich, Boykins, McGuire, Oberto, Shaun Livingston, James Singleton, Cartier Martin, Quinton Ross, Yi Jinlian, and Alonzo Gee) have been replaced by Rookies…. 20 players GONE!!! And those are just the players that started or played significant minutes in the last year and a half…!!
And somehow, magically, the remaining youngsters (mostly Rookies and second year players) are supposed to WIN !??
The Wizards have brought in tough, physical, athletic players with a winning mind set. John Wall. Kevin Seraphin. Trevor Booker. Jan Vesely. Chris Singleton. Jordan Crawford. All of those players are tough. They are winners. Losing for a couple seasons it NOT going to corrupt their minds. Losing this year won’t cement “losing ways” into Chris Singleton’s, or Trevor Booker’s psyche.
The whole “This team needs to learn how to win” is BS. Experienced TALENT wins in the NBA. Unless you are Wes Unseld, most good draft picks experience losing…. yet in my opinion, it doesn’t permanently imprint a “losing mentality” on them…
This year – the organization should play the youngsters -and to HELL with winning. Let the kids develop – if they win (almost impossible) so much the better…If they lose (which is probably certain) at least they lose together… and learn…. experience…. develop skills… develop chemistry….
You want to win now? Teach a “winning mentality”? Resign Mo Evans and play him starter minutes (35 minutes a night)… Use some cap room to sign a veteran big man (Okur, Przybilla) – and then play them significant minutes… Sit the Rookies… Make Seraphin, Booker, and Jordan Crawford “earn” minutes, like in the Eddie Jordan days. Jerk McGee, Young or Blatche out of games for making mistakes…. Rely heavily on Rashard Lewis, Okur and Evans in the second half and down the stretch at the end of games. Anyone else remember back 3 or 4 years ago to that style of “winning” basketball? Is that REALLY what you want?
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Dec 2, 2011 12:06 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
That four letter word is integral and you are completely missing the point.
If the Wizards play the youngsters – they will lose more games than they win – it’s inevitable. Which means they will at least have better odds at a high draft pick.
Completely agree, as long as that happens organically I have no problem. I am increasingly frustrated by fan sentiment wanting to see a losing seasons through next year. The idea that some are ok with the idea of the Wizards doing nothing and racking up lottery pick after lottery pick is appealing only in a vaccuum, and what I’m attempting to do here is to take that idea OUT of the vaccuum.
And somehow, magically, the remaining youngsters (mostly Rookies and second year players) are supposed to WIN !??I’m at peace with whatever happens organically, but I hate losing even as I acknowledge its necessity in gaining the NBA experience you mention later.
I’m not going to swing one way or the other on this next bit yet, but perhaps you could clarify the discrepancy between these two statements:
The whole "This team needs to learn how to win" is BS. Experienced TALENT wins in the NBA. Unless you are Wes Unseld, most good draft picks experience losing…. yet in my opinion, it doesn’t permanently imprint a "losing mentality" on them…And:
Kevin Durant has a losing attitude…When it comes to this sentiment, it causes me difficulty as well:
He got used to losing his first two years….
Stephen Curry is the same way – he’ll never be able to get over being on a bad Golden State team….
Ray Allen’s first two seasons in Milwaukee – they only won 33 and 36 games… He’s NEVER recovered… He was a loser then, and he’s still a loser today.
The League is chuck full of guys that lost their first few seasons in the NBA, and they have NEVER become winners. It never happens.
You have to establish a winning culture early in a player’s career, or he’s damaged goods forever.
This year – the organization should play the youngsters -and to HELL with winning. Let the kids develop – if they win (almost impossible) so much the better…If they lose (which is probably certain) at least they lose together… and learn…. experience…. develop skills… develop chemistry….Terl’s statement (Seems to me that when a guy has proven that his upside outweighs his liability, he plays. That simple.) is the crux of my dilemma here, because I want to agree with you here. But as you mentioned before with the NBA experience getting wins, playing rookies too far past their experience level gets them absolutely killed. Some guys use specific instances as fuel (Gilbert Arenas’ first time versus Gary Payton), others implode when they can’t handle the pressure. And that contributes to that losing mentality you affirmed in that previous comment.
You want to win now? Teach a "winning mentality"? Resign Mo Evans and play him starter minutes (35 minutes a night)… Use some cap room to sign a veteran big man (Okur, Przybilla) – and then play them significant minutes… Sit the Rookies… Make Seraphin, Booker, and Jordan Crawford "earn" minutes, like in the Eddie Jordan days. Jerk McGee, Young or Blatche out of games for making mistakes…. Rely heavily on Rashard Lewis, Okur and Evans in the second half and down the stretch at the end of games. Anyone else remember back 3 or 4 years ago to that style of "winning" basketball? Is that REALLY what you want?
Do I need to answer this?
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 2, 2011 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think anyone is fine with intentionally tanking
Well maybe some are but I remember I commented before being fine with another horrible season since we’ll get a high draft pick. That doesn’t mean I’m fine with intentional tanking, since that will go ways to hinder the development of prospects we already have. It doesn’t make any sense that we slow the progress of prospects we already have for future prospects, that will just be a never ending cycle.
I don’t know if this may be true or not, but what I think most fans who said another losing season was okay for the sake of high lottery pick is that even though our young prospects don’t produce results right away it’s OK. Like Rook said, if our youngsters get most of the minutes, we aren’t going to have a winning season. I’m not going to say it’s impossible, but its highly unlikely.
by Young Wook Lee on Dec 2, 2011 1:03 PM EST up reply actions
I can live with another losing season.
I don’t want to, but it’s necessary to the rebuilding process, and I will. What I’m concerned with is John Wall aiming at the playoffs. Now that seems silly at first, but who knows just how impactful he’ll be this year. If Dray comes on, Vale keeps making incremental progress, and Nick comes back as smooth as ever at the three point line, the lower seeds are definitely within reach.
I’m looking at the possibility of a rising tide of dissatisfaction, that the Wizards are turning themselves into a playoff hell team by maturing too soon before we could draft a Robin to Wall’s Batman. If the losing happens fine, but if by some miracle we start winning, anyone who is grumbling about lost draft position is ipso facto advocating tanking, and that’s not cool.
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 2, 2011 1:16 PM EST up reply actions
I believe the discrepancy you're talking about in Rook's statements...
Is no discrepancy at all. Because, unless I miss the mark, that entire comment you referenced was ironic rather than serious.
yeah I agree with this...
I dont get how anyone could possibly say winning is the secondary goal….even if you read everything you wrote…if you make winning your number one goal…everything else falls into place…
all the examples of players who won after enduring losing seasons doesnt prove your point
I dont think anyone is stating that they have to make the playoffs for them to be winners in the future…only point being made is that losing cannot be accepted…mistakes are fine…as long as mistakes are supplemented by effort
and regarding your whole mcgee and eddie jordan references…and nick young references…I dont know that I really disagree with what eddie jordan did…I mean years later these two are still making silly dumb mistakes that JV high school ballers dont make…and they’ve had pleentttyyy of time to learn….
if they lose its fine…but you have to build a winning culture where discipline and attention to detail is enforced…and then if they lose every night, thats okay, because they WILL learn…but just by throwign them out there and saying they’ll learn on their own is incorrect
by jasonj on Dec 2, 2011 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
My comment about Eddie Jordan was meant as a distinction between coaching styles...
Eddie Jordan – win now… Play veterans. Sit Rookies. Jerk young players out for mistakes.
vs.
Player development – Play the Rookies and young players. Vets as back-ups only. Allow young players to learn from mistakes – and play through mistakes….
There’s a very distinct difference between coaching styles…. and the Wizards need to chose which direction they want to go this year.. If they truly believe they are a “Playoff team” they should take door #1 – otherwise door #2.
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
On a slightly unrelated note
With Flip’s predilection to door #1, the news that we were talking to Mo and Josh terrified me…
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 2, 2011 1:55 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, definitely not enthusiastic about bringing either back
Those are minutes that belong to our draft picks.
From the District of Columbia, home of the hyperbolic paraboloid transitional floating zone defense.
we're talking about Flip Saunders
Rashard is going to play as much as his knees can handle it.
Kevin Durant has a losing attitude…
He got used to losing his first two years….
Of course that entire quote was from a different post… and unfortunately – there’s no sarcasm button on my keyboard… That was meant as a sarcastic (and hopefully not caustic) reply to someone that said losing breads a “losing mentality”…. when in actuality, there is absolutely no corroborating evidence to back up that statement… My statement that Durant lost his first two years – and he got used to losing and is therefore a “loser” was meant to be a response to that….
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
I fully understood what you were saying...
you using kevin durant and ray allen as examples of guys who lost, but were not seemingly affected and turned out to be winners….
my point was that is a black and white way of looking at it…when we say winning must be a priority in rebuild…we aren’t saying winning measured in wins and losses…rather…its a winning ATTITUDE and CULTURE that must be made a priority….if coach yanks mcgee and sits him for an entire game because of boneheaded mistakes that he refuses to change…or a lack of effort…i one hundred percent agree wtih that….I dont care if Mcgee is our best center and is raw and needs to have playing time….if you don’t care to win, you wont…i’d be happy with starting seraphin who seems to learn at an exponentially higher rate that Mcgee….
Thats what is meant by making winning a priority….make winning attitude and culture a priority…and that isnt achieved just by playing the young guys and letting them learn….
winning ATTITUDE
is a PLAYER attribute…
You draft and obtain the right kind of players – players with a strong mental make up – players who are hyper-competitive – players that hate to lose…. NO AMOUNT OF LOSING will change their attitude…. You draft weak minded – lazy players… Players only interested in the next paycheck – then losing can indeed become a “culture”…..
John Wall – Trevor Booker – Kevin Seraphin – Jan Vesely – Chris Singleton – Jordan Crawford
It looks to me like the Wizards are obtaining the right kind of players – and that NO AMOUNT OF LOSING will change those players above into “just looking for a paycheck” type players….
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
by Rook6980 on Dec 2, 2011 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Good point
You might just change my mind on this subject, actually…far as those guys are concerned…
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 2, 2011 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
I know, I'm an idiot ugh
Wasn’t sure because of the Ray Allen thing…I have a nearly inbred hated of him, don’t ask me why…watching that 0-7 night in the Finals a few years back was a sweet moment for me…
by Bullet Nation in Exile on Dec 2, 2011 1:53 PM EST up reply actions
experienced talent learns how to win?
tell that to the lakers team that lost to the pistons…or the heat last year…it takes more than just talent…even in the NBA
Yes it does take more then talent...
it takes a great coach with good expirenced talent, that has chemistry. But you can acquire or build all of those things except one. You can build good expirence and chemistry, you cant build top tier talent. So to get good expirence and chemistry you have to start off with top tier talent and a great coach. Then comes thier expirence together. Then comes chemistry. Then comes wins. Then comes good expirence together. Then comes playoffs. Then getting to the conference championship. Then comes NBA champinships. Its a long ride people and we are lucky John Wall and Ted are driving because they know it a hell-of-a lot better then we all do. Because each step is not 1 year – some are shorter some are longer – we are still in the “it starts off with top tier talent” stage – and I am okay with that.
It would be awesome if the Wizards were in the same situation as the Lakers and Heat
The Lakers have been in the spotlight of the NBA for most of our sports lives. Even when they sucked, you still probably wanted to go to the Laker game when they came to town. The Lakers have had a chance to win an NBA Conference for more years than not over the past 10 years. I would kill for the Wizards to be the Lakers, even with loss to the Pistons – think about how awesome it would be if a “bad” season was losing the NBA Finals because ESPN led every sportscenter with a Wizards highlight and every NBA fan knew you were a top 4 NBA team. Imagine John Wall becomes Kobe Bryant. Yes please
Let me say this first – I hate the Heat just as much as you do but I was not a Heat fan before they did this. The Heat went to the NBA finals within 10 months of putting this thing together. The Heat literally have a shot to win every game they play this year. They are not going to win every game – but they have a shot to win every game. Look at every team on paper. Don’t look at the schedule (back to backs, just had a big game, etc..). Just look at the players and coach. Their true fans watch every game thinking they are going to win. And are mad if they dont win. I am not mad yet when the Wizards play hard and loose to the Heat now. I want to feel that way. I’d love if D Wade, Chris Bosh, and LeBron James were on our team last year. Yes, I hate him more then any other player now, BUT lets say IF he left Cleveland and said “I want to play for the next 10 years with John Wall in Washington” – tell me you’d still hate him. You might not like him as a human, but you like him in a Wizards uniform and still love the Wizards. People say the Heat bought a championship. They drafted D Wade. How many people hate D Wade? no one. Now we drafted John Wall. How many people hate John Wall? No one. Now lets say Dwight Howard comes here. You gonna hate Ted/Ernie because he gave up a number 5 pick in the draft but he got you Dwight Howard? I wouldn’t. Would you say the Wizards bought a championship? I wouldn’t. I would be estatic that I expect to be winning every game – including the NBA Finals.
Rook, I agree....
….that the Wiz have to play the young players, but they need to play the right young players. For example, having McGuire play 54% of the available minutes a few years ago was a waste of time and came with an opportunity cost. Similarly, this year, Seraphin and N’daye are wasted minutes. They will never be solid NBA players. Similarly, I view Vesely as a long shot, but it’s worth getting him 20-25 minutes a game to see if can develop. Also, Crawford doesn’t deserve many minutes based on performance, but I would give him plenty of minutes based on potential. Finally, McGee is a special case. The coach needs to understand his mind and play to it in order to get him to perform. Flip ain’t the type. They will probably be at loggerheads all year, with little improvement.
If the team decides to go young, then it should permeate the whole organization including getting a young player’s coach and a GM who is good at getting talent out of the draft process.
Flip re: Javale and Nick
Flip said Nick Young & JaVale McGee need to mature on & off the court. ""The cinnamon thing, that doesn’t cut it."
hater
Never agreed with you more.
Experienced TALENT wins in the NBA.
EXACTLY! There’s a reason young exciting prospects get stuck behind the boring 10 year vet on winning teams. Because experience is so important in this league and sport. And if Ernie has faith in the player’s and the talent he’s acquired, he’ll let them play and learn and get better. And with the talent and fire that we got, they’re going places.
I'm a Wizards fan. We've been trying to tell you about Lebron for years. Hated the man before it was cool.
by returnofswagger on Dec 2, 2011 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
I think it depends WHO is "intentionally" tanking
You don’t coach your players to lose. That teaches bad habits. And good players with bad habits, when it comes to how they approach the game, don’t tend to stay good for very long (and yes, I know there are exceptions).
So you could argue that players try and play be their best, to win, but the organization, in particular the GM, does not try and improve each position, even marginally, via free agency just to pick up a few more wins. So yes, Grunfeld could, arguably, pick up via free agency a better player at almost every position except PG. He could do that, and we could wind 10-15 more games this season maybe. The age of our team would increase dramatically,y and next year, or the year after, we could be a worse team than we are now, but without any salary flexibility to fix it. So by not signing these players is he really “tanking” or is he looking long-term?
So I see no reason to sign solid players, for solid chunks of money, if they aren’t young with an upside. Not at this point. We need to play our youth and see what we have. If that’s tanking, then so be it.
by segastyle on Dec 2, 2011 1:30 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Two things I do not want to see
1) Coming out looking like amateurs who would be a mid-level ACC team like we did last year. That opening game against Orlando was painful. If it takes pulling the young players now and then to regroup and replacing them with vets, I’m fine with that. I don’t think there’s much to be learned from collapse and humiliation.
2) Seeing a veteran journeyman on the court when we aren’t in foul trouble and are not in a total meltdown.
I just want the team to play a watchable brand of basketball. If they lose, so be it. But they better not lose like amateurs.
Pierre is the smooth operator. @JaValeMcGee34 is the monster you've grown to know on the court.
by Elvin_is_my_Elvis on Dec 2, 2011 1:39 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I think its pretty simple
I want to see progress and cohesiveness. I wanna see us have a definable characteristic as a tesm rather it be fast breaking ,defense something that I can look at and say thats Wizards basketball.
But the most important thing for this franchise is for Jon Wall to become elite at his position to become one of the best 2-3 pg’s in the league. I wanna see him completely dominate . We need him at the elite level in order to esatblish some respect around the league and become a player other good players wanna play with.
I wanna see Mcgee eliminate some of the mental errors but not lose his flair become more porductive in the low post as a scorer and a more stable defender on the ball.
would be nice to see Blatche play well enough to increase his trade value. avoid the meltdowns defensively and the lazy play on offense. Playing more determined.
I will be satisfied if the losing starts but maturity is developed and progress being made with player development.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Patrick Patterson wants urine test prep
- Video: Please enjoy Jeremy Evans, dunk contestant
- Jeremy Lin finds himself a nice hotel to stay in, complete with a BLT bar
- Video: The Chinese Basketball Association’s All-Star game has the worst highlights ever
- Jeremy Lin scores his second straight Sports Illustrated cover, joining some lofty company
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
