PDA

View Full Version : This is the reason why the Pacers need to tank this season!!



PacerPride33
01-26-2010, 08:41 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4CbQGBbUOw

Gamble1
01-26-2010, 08:55 PM
Pretty good against high school kids.

Kemo
01-26-2010, 09:03 PM
Pretty good against high school kids.


well duh.. he WAS a highschool kid ...:bananadan

Lance George
01-26-2010, 09:06 PM
Pretty good against high school kids.

Pretty good against college kids, too, most of whom are older than he is.

Am I sensing the beginning of a pattern here... :confused:

KnicksRGarbage
01-26-2010, 09:28 PM
1. WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET JOHN WALL

2. I feel tanking is a terrible thing to do. Meaning, I feel that if a team tanks they deserve the shatty record they had and the previous ones as well. This is the problem with the lottery system... Teams tanking. I just feel it's a very unprofessional thing to do.

IndyHoosier
01-26-2010, 11:31 PM
1. WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET JOHN WALL

2. I feel tanking is a terrible thing to do. Meaning, I feel that if a team tanks they deserve the shatty record they had and the previous ones as well. This is the problem with the lottery system... Teams tanking. I just feel it's a very unprofessional thing to do.

I disagree that the lottery system encourages tanking. You are not guaranteed the first pick if you have the worst record, just the best shot at it. Since 1990, the worst team got the 1st pick only 3 times (1990, 2003, & 2004).
See here: http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-draft-lottery-history/

jeffg-body
01-26-2010, 11:45 PM
Remember teams that have tanked the season usually get some bad mojo and end up getting shafted. Ask Boston. If it were like the NFL I might be with you, but the ping pong balls usually don't go as planned.

OrganizedConfusion
01-26-2010, 11:46 PM
1. WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET JOHN WALL


Can I borrow your crystal ball? I want to see the future too.

Gamble1
01-27-2010, 12:11 AM
well duh.. he WAS a highschool kid ...:bananadan

So was george Hill who average 39 points per game. I'll give you Wall is the number one pick in this draft but the Pacers will play themselves out of a reasonable chance at picking him.
I hope I am not talking to guys who buy lottery tickets thinking they have a legit chance at wining.
http://mms.businesswire.com/bwapps/mediaserver/ViewMedia?mgid=211350&vid=3 (http://www.businesswire.com/multimedia/home/20100115005150/en/1909120/E*TRADE-Announces-Super-Bowl%C2%AE-XLIV-Advertisement-Evolved)

MillerTime
01-27-2010, 01:53 AM
I disagree that the lottery system encourages tanking. You are not guaranteed the first pick if you have the worst record, just the best shot at it. Since 1990, the worst team got the 1st pick only 3 times (1990, 2003, & 2004).
See here: http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-draft-lottery-history/
Get point. From what I remember, the 3rd worst team has historically gotten the 1st pick (though the odds are for the worst team)

Remember teams that have tanked the season usually get some bad mojo and end up getting shafted. Ask Boston. If it were like the NFL I might be with you, but the ping pong balls usually don't go as planned.

I remember when Boston tanked to get Duncan...they ended up with the worst record, but the 3rd overall pick and took Billups. Yes, Billups is great NOW, but back then he wasnt...he was a journeyman

And the C's over pick, 6th overall, they took Ron Mercer...wow what a bad draft that panned out to be for them

the jaddler
01-27-2010, 02:06 AM
Ok this is all I have to say and why we should not tank.....just simply this......

1. Dignity - the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed
2. Pride - the quality or state of being proud, a reasonable or justifiable self-respect
3. Integrity - firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values

that is all....

Will Galen
01-27-2010, 03:06 AM
1. WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET JOHN WALL

2. I feel tanking is a terrible thing to do. Meaning, I feel that if a team tanks they deserve the shatty record they had and the previous ones as well. This is the problem with the lottery system... Teams tanking. I just feel it's a very unprofessional thing to do.

I agree, however that's what Boston did and they turned it into a championship. Now everyone seems to be doing it, so it's a disadvantage to not do it.

The thing is you can get caught in the middle and be there for decades if you have poor management.
Thankfully we don't. I think Birds rebuilding plan will have us moving up in another year and a half regardless. However getting a top five pick in this draft would really enhance those plans.

MillerTime
01-27-2010, 03:13 AM
I agree, however that's what Boston did and they turned it into a championship. Now everyone seems to be doing it, so it's a disadvantage to not do it.

The thing is you can get caught in the middle and be there for decades if you have poor management.
Thankfully we don't. I think Birds rebuilding plan will have us moving up in another year and a half regardless. However getting a top five pick in this draft would really enhance those plans.

(If I understand you correct) When Boston tanked it was back in 1997 to get Duncan and the lottery went against them. They turned into a championship team 11 years later. The picks they had from 1998-2007 were not because of tanking, they were because they just sucked.

Therefore, because Boston tanked back in 1997, did not turn them into a championship team in 2008

cdash
01-27-2010, 03:45 AM
I disagree that the lottery system encourages tanking. You are not guaranteed the first pick if you have the worst record, just the best shot at it. Since 1990, the worst team got the 1st pick only 3 times (1990, 2003, & 2004).
See here: http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-draft-lottery-history/

The lottery system absolutely encourages tanking. Each year is independent from the previous years. The draft lottery this year doesn't give a **** that the team with the worst record has only gotten the top pick 3 times or whatever since the lottery was invented. The fact of the matter is, the worse record you have, the higher percentage chance you have of landing the top pick, or a top 3 pick. I'd say a system like that certainly doesn't discourage tanking.

MillerTime
01-27-2010, 04:16 AM
The lottery system absolutely encourages tanking. Each year is independent from the previous years. The draft lottery this year doesn't give a **** that the team with the worst record has only gotten the top pick 3 times or whatever since the lottery was invented. The fact of the matter is, the worse record you have, the higher percentage chance you have of landing the top pick, or a top 3 pick. I'd say a system like that certainly doesn't discourage tanking.

I kind of disagree with you here. Other sports (NHL, I think), that dont have a lottery system, the team with the worst record gets the first pick. A draft system like that would encourage tanking, because you are guaranteed the 1st pick if you are the worst team. But on the other hand, when you have a lottery system, just because you've tanked and have the worst record does not guarantee that you are getting the first pick...this would discourage teams from tanking

DgR
01-27-2010, 06:32 AM
I agree, however that's what Boston did and they turned it into a championship. Now everyone seems to be doing it, so it's a disadvantage to not do it.

The thing is you can get caught in the middle and be there for decades if you have poor management.
Thankfully we don't. I think Birds rebuilding plan will have us moving up in another year and a half regardless. However getting a top five pick in this draft would really enhance those plans.


:ding: :ding: :ding:

Tanking is very unprofessional, unsportsmanlike, unethical... whatever....
But since other teams do it, we can't afford not to at this point. We need to start playing by their rules, Because they're not about to play by ours. We have a rag tag roster with inferior talent. The only way we can move up the standings is if the other teams stop trying.
We're not worth 8th seed no matter which way you look at it. And since other teams who are already better than us don't have any qualms with tanking, it would be naive and borderline stupid to think trying to win at all times is always the way to go.
The Pacers won't get elite FA because Indy is unattractive as a city and the Pacers aren't attractive as a franchise. On the trade front things look as bleak. No GM would give any piece with future changing potential for anyone in this sorry, overpaid bunch not called Danny. The only way for us to get the talent we so desperately need is through the draft.
Another year of reaching 9th would be more damaging to us than continuing to suck the rest of the season.

Finishing 12th and getting a high pick doesn't guarantee we improve, but finishing 9th (again) guarantees we don't.

DaveP63
01-27-2010, 09:04 AM
With the high ammount of suckage at our level in the league, it may be difficult to legitimately suck bad enough to fall out of the logjam. No way we can catch the Nets...I think the best we can do is hope for a top 5.

Justin Tyme
01-27-2010, 09:32 AM
[QUOTE=the jaddler;951185]Ok this is all I have to say and why we should not tank.....just simply this......

1. Dignity - the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed
2. Pride - the quality or state of being proud, a reasonable or justifiable self-respect
3. Integrity - firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values that is all....[/QUOTE


All that gets you is an "atta boy" pat on the back while another team gets the opportunity to choose a better player to build their future with. Who will even remember you adhered to these principles years from now?

I've said numerous times the Pacers don't have to tank on purpose, just let Jimmy O'Stubborn stay with his helter skelter run n gun with little "D" system that no other prominent NBA coach would or does use. Don't let him change from his tunnel vision maddness, and a 5-7 pick is very possible in the future.

sweabs
01-27-2010, 09:58 AM
He's really comfortable with both hands (twss)

sportfireman
01-27-2010, 10:08 AM
:ding: :ding: :ding:

Tanking is very unprofessional, unsportsmanlike, unethical... whatever....
But since other teams do it, we can't afford not to at this point. We need to start playing by their rules, Because they're not about to play by ours. We have a rag tag roster with inferior talent. The only way we can move up the standings is if the other teams stop trying.
We're not worth 8th seed no matter which way you look at it. And since other teams who are already better than us don't have any qualms with tanking, it would be naive and borderline stupid to think trying to win at all times is always the way to go.
The Pacers won't get elite FA because Indy is unattractive as a city and the Pacers aren't attractive as a franchise. On the trade front things look as bleak. No GM would give any piece with future changing potential for anyone in this sorry, overpaid bunch not called Danny. The only way for us to get the talent we so desperately need is through the draft.
Another year of reaching 9th would be more damaging to us than continuing to suck the rest of the season.

Finishing 12th and getting a high pick doesn't guarantee we improve, but finishing 9th (again) guarantees we don't.


IMO you don't change your morales and what you stand for because "everyone else is doing it".

So I'm guessing you already know the future, so finishing what guarantees we improve?

d_c
01-27-2010, 10:54 AM
IMO you don't change your morales and what you stand for because "everyone else is doing it".

So I'm guessing you already know the future, so finishing what guarantees we improve?

I can't tell you that finishing with X number of wins guarantees an improvement. Nobody would be able to suggest a specific number.

It's just that winning 30-36 games for 4 straight seasons makes it pretty hard to get the car out of neutral. It makes life hard. The young guys you do have don't get playoff experience and you just wind up adding another non-elite prospect in the hopes that he can turn into something resembling elite. Not a real high percentage play.

It's a tough formula to win with.

Since86
01-27-2010, 11:31 AM
(If I understand you correct) When Boston tanked it was back in 1997 to get Duncan and the lottery went against them. They turned into a championship team 11 years later. The picks they had from 1998-2007 were not because of tanking, they were because they just sucked.

Therefore, because Boston tanked back in 1997, did not turn them into a championship team in 2008

Did you sleep through the whole Boston tanking for Greg Oden year?

the jaddler
01-27-2010, 02:01 PM
:ding: :ding: :ding:

Tanking is very unprofessional, unsportsmanlike, unethical... whatever....
But since other teams do it, we can't afford not to at this point. We need to start playing by their rules, Because they're not about to play by ours. We have a rag tag roster with inferior talent. The only way we can move up the standings is if the other teams stop trying.
We're not worth 8th seed no matter which way you look at it. And since other teams who are already better than us don't have any qualms with tanking, it would be naive and borderline stupid to think trying to win at all times is always the way to go.
The Pacers won't get elite FA because Indy is unattractive as a city and the Pacers aren't attractive as a franchise. On the trade front things look as bleak. No GM would give any piece with future changing potential for anyone in this sorry, overpaid bunch not called Danny. The only way for us to get the talent we so desperately need is through the draft.
Another year of reaching 9th would be more damaging to us than continuing to suck the rest of the season.

Finishing 12th and getting a high pick doesn't guarantee we improve, but finishing 9th (again) guarantees we don't.

so if i need money because i dont have any i will come steal it from you because well everyone else is doing it!

Gamble1
01-27-2010, 02:19 PM
[quote=the jaddler;951185]Ok this is all I have to say and why we should not tank.....just simply this......

1. Dignity - the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed
2. Pride - the quality or state of being proud, a reasonable or justifiable self-respect
3. Integrity - firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values that is all....[/QUOTE


All that gets you is an "atta boy" pat on the back while another team gets the opportunity to choose a better player to build their future with. Who will even remember you adhered to these principles years from now?

I've said numerous times the Pacers don't have to tank on purpose, just let Jimmy O'Stubborn stay with his helter skelter run n gun with little "D" system that no other prominent NBA coach would or does use. Don't let him change from his tunnel vision maddness, and a 5-7 pick is very possible in the future.

Like it or not the we all know where the Pacers stand on this and its more in line with what Justin Tyme said.

The Pacers don't tank and they have proven under JOB that they will more than likely get a pick around 10-15. I suggest all of you to align your expectations accordingly.

Naptown_Seth
01-27-2010, 02:34 PM
I can't tell you that finishing with X number of wins guarantees an improvement. Nobody would be able to suggest a specific number.

It's just that winning 30-36 games for 4 straight seasons makes it pretty hard to get the car out of neutral. It makes life hard. The young guys you do have don't get playoff experience and you just wind up adding another non-elite prospect in the hopes that he can turn into something resembling elite. Not a real high percentage play.

It's a tough formula to win with.
But you are suggesting it, and it's wrong. I had the study half done when FFox locked up, so I'll have to redo it later when I'm not so upset by it, but it's going to feature the Pacers at .500 for 4 straight years before going to 2 ECFs and winning 47, 52, 52 games. It also features all the teams that were in the toilet at the time and how they did jack squat in the same time frame.

Lance George
01-27-2010, 02:40 PM
But you are suggesting it, and it's wrong. I had the study half done when FFox locked up, so I'll have to redo it later when I'm not so upset by it, but it's going to feature the Pacers at .500 for 4 straight years before going to 2 ECFs and winning 47, 52, 52 games. It also features all the teams that were in the toilet at the time and how they did jack squat in the same time frame.

This isn't gonna be one of those situations where you throw out one or two examples while completely ignoring dozens of examples to the contrary, is it? I noticed that you do that sort of thing a lot, no offense.

Los Angeles
01-27-2010, 02:41 PM
I should know to never open a thread with the word "tank" in the title.

Tanking doesn't work. Tanking never has. If it did work, we'd see a cycle of the worst teams becoming great teams 5 years later as happens in other sports. The NBA doesn't work that way. The NBA sees the same teams competing for the championship over and over and over again. On extremely rare occasions, an exceptional player will make a bad team competitive, but that's about it.

Lance George
01-27-2010, 02:47 PM
Tanking doesn't work. Tanking never has.
Can you back this up with actual data or are we just suppose to take your oh-so-brilliant word for it?

IUfan4life
01-27-2010, 03:11 PM
some of you people make me sick

Los Angeles
01-27-2010, 07:03 PM
Can you back this up with actual data or are we just suppose to take your oh-so-brilliant word for it?

The Following User Says Thank You to GrangeRusHibbert For This Useful Post: Los Angeles

Kstat
01-27-2010, 07:09 PM
Tanking doesn't work %80 of the time. And the %80 that fail only make themselves worse than they already were.

It results on having a bad team that failed to get the magic lottery ticket out of the cellar, and are now stuck with losing badly for years and years until they get enough lottery picks that the law of averages take over.

Tanking one season typically results in tanking 4-5 seasons. That's the risk.

Lance George
01-27-2010, 07:39 PM
Tanking doesn't work %80 of the time. And the %80 that fail only make themselves worse than they already were.

It results on having a bad team that failed to get the magic lottery ticket out of the cellar, and are now stuck with losing badly for years and years until they get enough lottery picks that the law of averages take over.

Tanking one season typically results in tanking 4-5 seasons. That's the risk.

A few questions...

What's your definition of tanking?

What's your definition of successful tanking?

Can you list some teams who have tanked, and then separate them by the 20% who have succeeded and the 80% who have failed? For example, did the Celtics tank in 96-97, and if so, would landing the #3 pick and a likely Hall of Famer in Chauncey Billups be considered failure? Keep in mind that their prematurely trading of Billups is a separate issue altogether and shouldn't factor into the discussion.