Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 4  Next >

may the tank be with us

Avatar

Posted: 03/29/2012 10:04 PM

may the tank be with us 


Hello all, I'd like to take a moment to address a touchy subject that's near and dear to my heart: tanking.  ESPN, the arbiter of all modern things sports recently ran some articles on tanking.  Here they are:

First ESPN article

 

and

Second ESPN article

 

Its one of those things that you read, and you want to strangle the media for such half-witted analysis.  You wonder why, in a world with people who can truly analyze things, a bunch of half-wits sit down at their computer for five minutes and churn out stuff like that.  Bad teams are bad because they make bad decisions.  There's a news flash for you.  Show of hands, how many warriors fans, over the years, have come to that conclusion?

 

Tanking is a part of the sport, in the sense that even the "bad" teams with "dumb" ownership have figured it out: losing games, and lots of games, is the quickest way to acquire a franchise player.  Don't hate the player, hate the game.  While I agree that, in theory, rewarding the best run teams with higher draft choices may be good, I have to ask some obvious questions:

 

-how do you define "better run"?  The article makes the argument that the better run teams make better choices that lead to better results.  Okay, but what if being "best run" means seeing the system for what it is, and losing a boatload of games (and possibly getting fired)?  Was Pritchard (who was let go by the Blazers) smart or dumb?  I ask because everyone in the basketball universe told him to take Greg Oden over Kevin Durant, and he took Greg Oden over Kevin Durant.  It seems dumb now, but back then, it was a no-brainer.  Running the blazers into a playoff team, year after year, didn't get Pritchard fired, it was that one decision.  In short, ESPN does what ESPN always does; present a problem that everyone knows exists, make some vague generalizations about how great it would be if things weren't that way, and then, proceed to not offer any concrete proposals for fixing the problem.  If I wanted that, I'd watch congressional hearings on C-SPAN.

 

Okay, so let me say for the record that I am opposed to tanking.  Lots of warriors fans openly root for it, but I do believe there are benefits that only winning games can bring.  That doesn't change one crucial point (a point ESPN doesn't make, because it would expose the networks's own hypocrisy):

 

ESPN, the fans, and everyone celebrates star players.  If you don't have a star, or are actively trying to acquire one, your the subject of scorn and ridicule.  ESPN rewards organizations that win rings, not ones who are merely "good enough".  You never hear ESPN talk about the champion Pistons, a team that won it all without a bonafide "star" (i will concede they played in a down year for stars, but they did win it all) and who won it all with smart decisions, good teamwork, and stuff.  Such things are not rewarded.  ESPN put the Monta Ellis trade, which I rank as the second best trade the warriors have ever made, and is what "smart" teams do, on their list of perpetual warrior's blunders.  ESPN believes in the star system, because it would help their own narrative (and TV ratings).

 

Okay, so we've established that you if you have a star, and you trade him, you lose that trade, that's why no one trades them unless they have to.  I find the Monta Ellis trade to be one of the single most ridiculous media fabrications I've ever run across.  You read what the local media was saying about it, and they were all supportive (I don't think I read a single bad local opinion in the press about the trade) you read what the national media says, and its a different story.  I don't get it.  The media hated on Ellis while he was a warrior and the instant he's moved, they hated on the warriors for moving him.  Why?  Because they got a good deal?

 

If there is one thing in the entire NBA that, if you have it, you don't ever, ever trade it, its top of the line big men.  Its the planet principle, the number of guys that large is a small company, the number of guys that large who can actually play is microscopic.  The warriors gave up talent (Ellis, a promising young big who plays defense in Udoh, and they took on a year of a bad contract.  That's a lot to give up.) but what they got in return was basketball gold: a top of the line center.  There is nothing that can catapult a team back into relevance like solving the biggest black hole in the game.  They may have to wait until next season till he actually plays, and this is a gamble that could easily blow up in their faces.  That's life.  If you have to gamble to take on a center who is in his prime (Bogut is 27) then you do it.  Don't be timid.  Don't be shy.  Just do it.

 

ESPN, believe it or not, has a point: too many teams are trying to copy the OKC model without understanding why it worked.  What ESPN fails to realize is to figure out why and how other teams did get good, or how other teams stayed good.  This fundamental lack of understanding is dis-heartening.  If your an average team, and you want to trade for a star player under contract to somebody else (you aren't getting one in FA, star players only go to great teams, or the knicks, these days.)you have to have one thing: assets.  Assets can take any number of forms, but they all bear the same hallmark: they're largely acquired through the draft.  The only asset that isn't is expiring contracts.  The warriors were able to get Bogut because they had assets Milwaukee wanted.  They had Epke Udoh (the #6 overall pick, on a cheap, rookie deal) and Monta Ellis (who is somewhat rare in being a guy who had substantial trade value despite having an expensive contract) and they had a big expiring contract (Kwame Brown).  It took that level of asset leveraging to pry Bogut out of Milwaukee.  Its no easy task, but if Bogut stays healthy, I guarantee you the lineup of Bogut-Lee-whoever at SF-Thompson-Curry if he can stay healthy, will do a lot of damage in the west next year.  Injuries are the major concern for that team, if it can stay healthy, making the playoffs is a real possibility.

 

OKC got lucky in the draft, because they were prepared, four times.  However, even with those four "hits" OKC was not going to ever win a championship.  It took a shrewd trade to bring in the final piece: the Boston Celtics trading them Kendrick Perkins.  How did the Thunder manage to pry an in his prime center out of the Celtics' grip?  Because A) Boston didn't want to pay Perkins and wanted to avoid the lux tax (a pretty poor decision, IMHO, I'd have parted with Ray Allen if it meant hanging on to Perkins) and B) OKC had assets the Celtics wanted (Jeff Green doesn't seem like much now, but he was a former #5 overall pick).

 

I would agree that smart teams tend to win more games (pretty obvious, huh?) but is there a sustainable model for an NBA team to follow to success rather than "lose a bunch of games and hope you get lucky"?  Yes, I think there is, good asset acquisition and good asset management is the name of the game.  I've been pretty pleasantly surprised by how ahead of the curve warrior's owner Joe Lacob is on this front.  One of the things that I think would massively help the bottom feeders, maybe even more than talking about re-ordering the draft, would be to create a true minor league system (won't happen, reason why rhythms with "funny") that could focus on development, and, creating assets for trade.  That's why I thought the Richard Jefferson trade was also a good move: acquiring draft picks is crucial to this strategy.  If you do your scouting homework, draft picks, even late round ones, could be turned into serviceable players, and serviceable players, on cheap contracts, have trade value that you can parlay into star, or near star players.  I think Lacob wanted to go the Free Agency route to build his team quickly, and got a (I hope) rude awakening.  That's not how the system works.  If you play in FA, the kind the warriors could get are overpriced, and that's only going to set you back.

 

Bottom line, I would agree that tanking is a problem, and that's its never a good thing, but there are systemic reasons for why it happens, some of which are perpetuated by ESPN.  Sometimes, I really do think that the front offices of half the league aren't trying to win games (and I don't mean not trying to win now I mean not trying to win ever.  The CC warriors were that team.) and that is a shame.  Rightly or wrongly, they've sold their fans a magic bullet, and when that bullet doesn't come up (you didn't win the lottery this year, tank again and try your luck next year, you have to get that star player before anything else) fans can blame stern and the conspiracy against their team for losing out on the pick.  In some ways, I agree with ESPN's premise, but I think they're analysis is far too simplistic and they don't offer a single real solution.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 03/30/2012 1:12 PM

Re: may the tank be with us 


As I've stated before, soda, I think your crusade against ESPN and other media tends to do exactly what you blame them for doing. You are over-simplifying the nature of "media," in general, and relying on some very cursory investigation to draw some rather scathing conclusions that, in reality, does not accurately reflect ESPN's actual positions.

First off, ESPN does not have an explicit position on what is the 'right' answer to these questions. In fact, if you really do a deeper dive on how they operate as a business, they thrive off of creating debate over topics. I've mentioned this before, but you seem to have forgotten or ignored this. They don't have a horse in the race on what makes the right type of team (not from the position of creating a 'narrative' anyway). Rather, they like to make sure there is more than one horse in the race, so that they have some type of competition.

Look at all the shows they create. First Take. Pardon the Interruption. Around the Horn. Etc. They are all 'debate' shows. Debate sells. Having two people argue over topics sells. To ESPN, that's what they care about. They don't have an agenda to promote specific ways to build NBA franchises at all.

Now, it may be true that they focus on star players for their highlights, etc., but that's been the case in sports broadcasting since it became an actual industry. Stars and underdogs. The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. That's not unique to ESPN or even sports media, to be honest. It's a phenomenon that the Ancient Greeks noted when they described the elements of story and drama. Blame Aristotle and his Poetics if you don't like the focus on Heroes (and even then, you'd be blaming the wrong person, because he merely observed the phenomenon; he didn't create it).

In reality, the focus on stars/heroes is an innately human condition. It's not limited to even American media. When Sachin Tendhulkar scored his 100th century playing cricket, do you think anyone even remembers if Tendhulkar's team won the match? (India lost to Bangladesh, btw, but few stories barely mentioned that).

In this particular case, you're railing on two writers who aren't really even ESPN staff writers. They are part of an ancillary group of writers that ESPN publishes under the "TrueHoop" network, and, like most columns/blogs, "the opinions expressed by the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of ESPN."

In the end, I think, like when you got all hot and bothered about Monte Poole, this is much ado about nothing. To wit, I've heard Colin Cowherd and Doug Gottlieb provide entirely different takes on tanking from each other and from these articles. They're actual ESPN personalities. Bob Valvano has a very different view on it, as well (as a former coach, I think you can guess how he views it -- not a fan).

I think blaming ESPN for tanking (or even saying their complicit in its continued occurrence) is as irresponsible as what you believe the media does, which is throw together some thoughts, do some hasty research, and then throw it out to see if it sticks.

If you want to blame them for being formulaic at times, I get that. I would agree, as noted above, that they can focus too much on certain celebrity, and ESPN has never tried to pretend that they are not in the entertainment business (thus the E for 'Entertainment' in their acronym). But they could care less how a team wins a championship. There was plenty of talk about the Pistons back in 2004. Why they would continue to talk about that team today, though, is something I don't quite understand. They don't talk a lot about the 2003 Lakers, except when they are bringing up the current Lakers. They don't talk much about the 2005 Spurs, either, except maybe in passing when discussing the current Spurs. Both of those teams remain somewhat relevant today. The Pistons? Not so much.

I applaud your attempt to try and draw a critical eye on the media, but I really think you need to do a better job of researching the subject. I've read McLuhan, Blumler, Parenti, McQuail, etc.. I do think I speak from a position of some knowledge (albeit probably a little dated) when it comes to Media. There is much to criticize the media about, but the last couple posts you've had, imo, have really missed the mark.

Last edited 03/30/2012 1:13 PM by pudding

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 03/30/2012 2:40 PM

Re: may the tank be with us 


calling around the horn and PTI "debate shows" is like calling Kim Kardashian a virgin.  Seriously, they aren't debate shows, they're yelling shows.  I used to watch them, from time to time, until I realized that they were two guys yelling at each other, under a set time, until one of those guys won.  I participated on my debate team in school, and one thing about debate that they always tried to ram into our heads was that go making the right point, not the one that gets the most volume, or that gets the most responses on twitter (although my debate career was before twitter).  You don't see real depth of coverage on anything anymore, and when you do see it, it strikes you as so sensational that you wonder why its not on more often.  ESPN sent into cannonical exile the one real debate show they had: Edge NFL Matchup.  That show had two guys (in Jaws and Hodge) who had very different views about what wins football games BACKING UP their statements with evidence (in the form of game tape, and play breakdowns) and not backing up their statements with volume and fluff. 

Look, its entertainment, I get that.  I don't particularly expect or think my sports should be anything else.  When you break it all down, its all really just fun and games, no one dies at the end, there aren't (supposed to be) real life consequences.  You get with your buddies, have a few beers, watch the game, vent about it online afterwards.  Its fun.  There's no need to get caught up in it as a lifestyle type thing.  I understand that in many ways, ESPN is in the same business as the E! network, entertainment coverage.  If yelling is what gets ratings, people put that on.  That's not on ESPN, I get that too, that's giving the people what they want.  With the advent of the internet, there are plenty of places that provide higher grade analysis anyway, so I see very little reason to actually watch ESPN anymore (that's a lie, I do watch it, but if you were to come into my home, and see me watching ESPN, the first thing you'd ask is "where's the volume?  Why's it on mute?" I watch games on ESPN, and I like to check in on the ticker when I can't get to a computer.  But I never watch ESPN with the volume on, its too annoying.)  In making my points about the media, I was stretching the reality of what I believe a bit, trying in some ways to mimic what they actually do, to drive home why I think its particularly pathetic.  Just like the E! Channel. 

Reading those articles about tanking just got to me to thinking, where have I heard arguments like that before?  Where have I?  Here's the thing (to get back to what this topic was supposed to be about) The way the articles make it seem, tanking is a serious problem and steps need to be taken to curtail it.  Yes, and yes.  No serious sports fan would argue that.  However, is it a problem, in and of itself, or is it the logical outcome of the system?  Is it a disease, or is it the symptoms?  What is the end goal, morally, of ending tanking?  Based upon the articles I read, maintaining the integrity of the game.  Okay, well, what does that mean?  Fair play?  Sportsmanship?  I think what they're getting at is competitive balance. 

For the most part, competitive balance has little to do with the inverse order of the common draft.  The NFL, the most competitive league on earth, has a similar draft structure, and is the most competitive league on earth.  The NFL also has structural advantages over the other major sports leagues, advantages that are ingrained in the way they do business.  For people who think the NFL is wildly popular because of some inherent thing inside the game, I would say this: baseball was the pastime of the nation for generations.  You go to other countries, like India, and people think Basketball is the #1 sport, or soccer.  There is nothing inherent about the way football is played that gives it such a huge advantage, there is something about the way the NFL conducts its business that gives it such a huge advantage. 

So, ESPN is entertainment, fine, I get that.  But when the E! network starts covering the legal fallout of a Supreme Court decision, I think I should expect that they will do so on a level more than just what the justices are wearing.  People might try to hide behind the ruberic of "its just entertainment", but, as Jon Steward pointed out, comedy has risks, people who tell jokes face consequences, nobody should hide.  These articles attempted to find some solution to a very specific problem: tanking, without realizing that the problem itself is the symptom of a much more widespread structural issue.  The article hints that there's a bigger problem, but never calls out what it is, and the solutions that they do offer would, likely, make the situation even worse than it is today.  Those are problems.  If you want to be entertainment, fine, be entertainment, and stick to entertainment, but don't do things that look like journalism, and which really aren't, and then pass it off as some kind of analysis.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 03/30/2012 3:37 PM

Re: may the tank be with us 


1) Arguing with me over the semantics of the word "debate" is rather silly, don't you think? It was a simple descriptor, not an observation. It doesn't really take a conversation anywhere to argue over a descriptor word (I could have called them "yelly" shows, and the point would have been the same - ESPN is not in the business of having an agenda on the type of nitty-gritty details you were building your conspiracy rant upon).

2) How you consume ESPN or view it is not particularly apropos to the notion you presented that ESPN is implicitly promoting the "superstar" agenda, and forcing teams to build around superstars. If you're going to create a thesis, back it up. Debating in high school is all well and good, but, if you were taught proper argumentative technique, you'd know that side-bar commentary does nothing to promote or support a thesis, and that whole section is just that - side bar.

3) I'm honestly lost as how you get from ranting about an 'agenda' and 'narrative' that ESPN and the media have towards building teams around superstars, to discussing the moral/ethical notions of tanking. Really.. I'm not following at all. It's like you're just sort of running with a notion, with no actual thesis, now. What's your point? I mean, you lay out some interesting thoughts about competitive balance, but they have no anchoring in anything you said before -- not that I'm able to precisely follow, anyway.

4) The whole idea of why Football is popular vs. other sports is really pretty simple (although, again, totally unrelated to your original point). How many football games are there? 16. It's an event. A destination event every Sunday. If you look at how TV broadcasters/networks, etc. try to build their schedule, do you know what the #1 determining factor is? Time slot. If you can build viewership around a time slot, and, better yet, create an 'event' around it, you've got the formula for success. Sweeps weeks are built around? Right.. events. Watch this movie. See this event. Etc. Football is perfectly built for the TV media age. Baseball was popular at a time when there wasn't TV and there wasn't a lot of other entertainment activities to vie for a person's attention or consumption dollars. Really, it's not about competitive balance that makes football more popular (in fact, baseball has had a greater variety of teams in the playoffs and winning championships than football, historically) it's about being perfectly built for TV viewing (at least for American audiences, anyway).

5) I don't agree with your conclusion regarding the nature of what these people are writing, and the 'consequences' of their writing. You are arguing cause, but not proving effect. If, in fact, these bloggers actually have any influence over how teams run themselves, then, perhaps, you'd have a point. As is, they are merely noise in a gigantic universe of sports cacophony. That they happen to have a platform like ESPN.com to spout it doesn't really mean a lot given how those articles are likely viewed by the actual decision makers on the teams. The next time a GM admits "well, Henry Abbot wrote this column, and it got me thinking.. hmmm.. maybe I should consider changing how I run my team" will be the first time. It's not happening.

Ultimately, what I said before stands. I think you're getting ruffled by a lot of nothing. I bet those articles probably were viewed by a rather small percentage of the ESPN audience, and I bet a huge percentage  that those who bothered to click on it probably didn't read it all the way through (lot of word in them articles tongue ).  Certainly, if your concern is over the focus on 'heroes' 'superstars' etc. that the mass majority of fans may have, then I think getting riled up by articles in TrueHoop seems like you're ranting at the wrong target.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 03/31/2012 6:23 AM

Re: may the tank be with us 


Tank is such an ugly word.

It carries connotations of cheating, fixing and unethical skullduggery. (Skullduggery, oddly enough, is a cool word.)

I would never suggest that the Warriors "tank" the rest of the season. They need to do what they need to do, but under a mission label that reflects the corporate expediency and validity of what they're doing.

Rather than the unsavory tanking, the Warriors could call their strategy Dynamic Utilitarian Managing and Positioning, or DUMP.

The coach and front office would expand their collective vision to take in the great sweep of the future, rather than myopically fixating on a few wins right now. It's a form of delayed gratification, which psychologists say is a measure of character.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/01/2012 10:26 PM

Re: may the tank be with us 


I would love it if the Warriors go 0-15 to close out the season. I would also love it if they go 15-0. When I watch the games, I can't root for my favorite team to lose. The way I see it, they are going to win or lose just the same, regardless of who I am puling for. So that being said, I can't enjoy going against the Warriors during games. If the Warriors win, I am happy, and if they lose, I am also happy because each loss gives us a better chance at keeping our pick. I salivate at the thought of adding a top 7 pick, the first rounder from San Antonio, plus Bogut and Curry to next years roster. The remaining games are not very favorable to the Warriors.

BTB @Memphis @Minnesota
BTB @Utah Denver
@Denver
BTB @Portland Dallas
@Clippers
San Antonio
Lakers
BTBTB @Dallas @Houston @Minnesota
New Orleans
San Antonio

Those are all going to be tough games except possibly the Spurs to end the season. If they are locked into a playoff seed, we can expect Duncan and the other vets to see limited action or maybe even get the game off. The majority of these games could easily wind up in the loss column.

Jackson does need to quit riding Lee so hard. Is playing him over 40 minutes when the season is already lost doing anybody any good? Tyler needs more than 11 minutes. How is he going to develop with limited action? These games don't matter to the Warriors but other teams have something to play for. Tyler can't get the chance to play against competition like this in the summer and pre-season. Is it a matter of Tyler not putting in the effort in practice so Jackson doesn't want him to think he can get playing time without earning it?

Last edited 04/01/2012 10:29 PM by Athleticsfan22

Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/13/2012 9:19 AM

Re: may the tank be with us 


Warriors are now tied for 8th worst record in the NBA with Detroit and a game and a half in front of New Jersey for the 7th spot.The updated standings are below

SeedTeamWLGBGRGR vs +.500
8Detroit22361 ½84
8Golden State22361 ½86
7New Jersey2138075
6Cleveland1937107
5Toronto2039-174
4Sacramento1940-275

Last edited 04/13/2012 9:25 AM by jayob1

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/13/2012 11:47 AM

Re: may the tank be with us 


Take a look at New Jersey's remaining schedule..

@ Philadelphia
vs. Boston
vs Miami
vs New York
vs Milwaukee
vs Philadelphia
@ Toronto

I only really see the Toronto game being one that they have a good chance of winning. Over the past month, they have 9 wins, but those 8 wins are a little deceiving. They've beaten Cleveland, Washington, Sacramento, Golden State, Toronto, and Charlotte twice amongst those wins. the Pacers are the only good win in that entire period.

Of course, the Warriors schedule is not any easier..

@ Clippers
vs. San Antonio
vs. Lakers
@ Dallas
@ Houston
@ Minnesota
vs New Orleans
vs San Antonio

The Warriors may also only have a single win left on their schedule.


The problem is, if the Warriors win even once, then New Jersey has to win twice just to have them have tied records (and then be at the mercy of a coin flip if neither team ends up with a top-3 pick).  New Jersey would have to win three times in their remaining seven games for the Warriors to have the outright 7th worst record. If the Warriors win twice, then New Jersey has to win three times just to tie, and four for the Warriors to have the outright 7th worst record.

Even if the Warriors end up with a record that's tied for the 7th worst, knowing the Warriors luck, they'll either have a team jump from below them to the top-3, thus bumping them out of their protection, or they'll lose a coin flip to New Jersey.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/13/2012 5:26 PM

Re: may the tank be with us 


I agree. I think if the warriors do manage to get the seventh worst record they'll still lose their spot in the lottery. I really don't understand why stern doesn't do the lottery drawing in front of a live audience. Sterns a control freak and it makes me think he uses the anonymity to control where the ping pong balls land. If you look at the lottery it seems like teams that are suffering with fan attendance get a lot of fortunate bounces. Washington got the number one pick after the arenas-crittention fiasco. Cleveland gets the top pick after lebron leaves town. Chicago gets the number one when the hometown boy is available. Ditto for lebron in Cleveland. I can go on and on, but it just goes to show that the lottery really seems to be rigged. I think the warriors fans continual support despite their poor play makes them a lower priority for stern. I know it's a little far fetched but I can't help but think something fishy is going on
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/13/2012 7:01 PM

Re: may the tank be with us 


update: the nets and raptors both won tonight.  Meaning the warriors are now tied with the Pistons and the nets in the win column (when you're talking about draft position, the win column is what's important, because you can always add more loses, thus evening out for games played) for the seventh spot.  The warriors are also just one win ahead of Toronto.  Its looking like Sacto and Cleveland are going to keep sinking.  We'll see.  Sacto, Cleveland and Detriot are all losing big right now, but getting Toronto and NJ is a good thing.  I'm morally opposed to ever seeing my team lose, but that doesn't mean I can't root for other teams to win.

Also, I do agree, I think the draft lotto should be aired live, show us the ping pong balls, Stern.  There's a reason why, whenever they do the drawing for the state lottery, they air the ping pong balls live.  There's too much space for corruption with something like this, transparency, and the more of it you have the better, is the best policy if you want to marginalize the conspiracy theorists.  I realize there's some big bean counter in the room to guarantee the validity of the results, but come on, we all know bean counters can be bought.  I'm not even arguing that the warriors have been the ones getting screwed over, they won the lottery twice in twenty years, which given where they finish, is probably about right.  However, until Stern shows the drawing, I'll have my doubts.

Last edited 04/13/2012 7:06 PM by soda

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/13/2012 7:15 PM

Re: may the tank be with us 


But all will be right with the world if the W's get the 1st pick this year Sterncool
Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/13/2012 10:23 PM

Re: may the tank be with us 


If the Warriors can lose out they stand a great chance at keeping the pick. I'll confess, now that the bottom 7 is a real possibility, I don't want any more wins. Jersey and Detroit should be good for at least one more W. Lee is likely done for the season so that means Mcguire should be starting. For the last 8 games I just want heavy minutes for Jenkins, Thompson, Tyler, and even Gladness to see what he's got. Oh, and I want 8 losses. I kinda feel bad saying that but we are without 3 starters and so close to keeping our pick. This draft is just too stacked to let that pick get away at this point.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/13/2012 10:42 PM

Re: may the tank be with us 


Updated 4/13
SeedTeamWLGBGRGR vs +.500
9Golden State2236186
8Detroit2237½74
7New Jersey2238064
6Toronto2139-163
5Cleveland1938-1½96
4Sacramento1941-364

while the clumping of teams in the warriors range got smaller. With Detroit losing, the Warriors are back in 9th worst record.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/16/2012 11:00 AM

Re: may the tank be with us 


Lee's injury definitely will make this more interesting going down the stretch. Toronto's surprise win over Atlanta now puts them in a tie with New Jersey.. should make that final regular season game between the two interesting.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/16/2012 3:09 PM

Re: may the tank be with us 


if the Warriors are successful in losing the rest of the season and Detroit beats Cleveland on tuesday,  The warriors are at the very least assured a 7th seed in the lottery process.

That means they will have at least a 75% probability of picking 7th or less and retaining their pick.

If all 3 teams (Det, NJ & Toronto) can win one more game the Warriors have at least a 95.9.% chance of picking 7th or less and retaining their pick
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/16/2012 4:36 PM

Re: may the tank be with us 


Because Toronto and New Jersey play each other, this will end up being true if the Warriors lose all their games.

1) Charlotte (7-52)
2) Washington (14-46)
3) New Orleans (18-42)
4) Sacramento (20-41)
5) Cleveland (20-39)
T-6) Toronto (22-39)
T-6) New Jersey (22-39)
8) Detroit (22-38)
9) Golden State (22-37)

However, if the Warriors manage to win one more game, all of that changes. With seven games to go, and a game against New Orleans in the mix, a win, even for the severely depleted Warriors, is still possible. And landing with the 7th worst record doesn't guarantee they will remain there. There's still a slight chance (25%) a team below them would pass them in the lottery and drop them below the #7 slot. Point being - don't count chickens before they hatch.

Last edited 04/16/2012 4:38 PM by pudding

Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/16/2012 6:40 PM

Re: may the tank be with us 


My new favorite teams are the Nets, Raptors, Pistons, and whoever is playing the Warriorsbiggrin I just hope the Spurs are playing for the #1 seed the last game of the season. The other winnable games are at Minnesota and New Orleans, but we could easily lose those as well.

If we can lose the last 7, and the Nets, Raptors and Pistons get at least one win each, that would put us at #6 heading into the lottery.cool
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/16/2012 8:41 PM

Re: may the tank be with us 


The Hornets are playing like a house on fire right now, another win tonight.  I think, by far, the most winnable game left on the schedule is @minny, the wolves look like they're tanking just as hard as the warriors are.  It's the third night on a road B2B2B, so the warriors will probably be exhausted.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 04/17/2012 6:12 PM

Re: may the tank be with us 


Stephen Curry will miss the remainder of the 11-12 season due to his persistent ankle injury.

Curry was reevaluated on Monday.

Curry has been limited to 13 games and hasn't played since March 10th.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 04/17/2012 8:44 PM

Re: may the tank be with us 


I thought it was already a given that Curry will sit out the rest of the year. Part of the reason I don't mind tanking is because our 3 best players are all injured, so they can't build any chemistry while offering a preview of what to expect next season.

Yesterday was a perfect Warriors game IMO. Tyler had a double double, Thompson had 29 points, 8 rebounds, 5 assists, Robinson came in off the bench and dropped in 30, and we lost.biggrin
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 4  Next >