WFNY Fantasy Baseball Challenge: Free Entry, Win $500
April 25, 2012Cavaliers and Wizards Renew Rivalry, Only Over Draft Position Now
April 25, 2012Cavalier rookie Kyrie Irving was not at shoot-around today, and his status for the team’s final home game is up in the air. Coach Byron Scott said he was informed by trainers this morning about Irving’s illness.
“We’ll see how he feels when he gets to the arena. Right now, if I had to guess I’ll have Donald starting at the one.”
The Cavs and Wizards tip-off (with or without Kyrie) at 7:00pm on Fan Appreciation Night.
[Related: Kyrie Irving sits the fourth quarter as Cavs cruise into summer]
40 Comments
I like this move. Good job Kyrie, you sitting out is the only chance we have to lose against the Wizards.
tankitis is a serious disease not to be messed with. get rest Kyrie, we’ll need you next year.
Christ Grant slipping ipecac into Irving’s cornflakes.
We need this L haha. New Orleans won again last night. I really think even with an L here, we will beat the bulls tomorrow.
Yeah, we are the Lords of Tankonia! Losing tonight would guarantee us a share of the #3 pick as long as we lose our last game against Chicago as well.
Wow…. teams 3-8 all within 2 games of each other at the bottom..two losses and we’re flipping a coin for #3, two wins and we’re flipping a coin for #7 or #8….sorry Kyrie, but not going to miss you in this one
Are tiebreakers all coin flips no matter what?
There.ca no coin flip for the first round, the ping pong balls are just evenly split between tied teams
Since no one here can apply a real life stradegy that allows me to intensionally fail at everything and still be successful, I’m gonna say the following:
I HOPE THE CAVS WIN, AND LOWER THEIR DRAFT POSITION.
End of line….
I really like the idea of a single elimination tournament among all of the lottery teams to determine draft order. Teams with the best record get home court advantage, all teams are lumped together, no East/West, and the team that wins gets number one pick. Automatically eliminates both tanking and the belief among every basketball fan that the lottery is rigged. Also would mean that really good teams that have been built the right way but are just missing a superstar component, teams like Houston for instance, would have better odds of becoming contenders quickly rather than languishing in 8th seed purgatory. It would also help to stop teams such as Charlotte, or Washington from collecting top tier talent and then crushing it into obscurity, year after year. Who wouldn’t tune in to watch that?
so then we’d have the teams in line for the 6th, 7th and 8th playoff spots would tank. A couple “injuries” nagging here and there that could use a little rest and voila, Anthony Davis.
The current system is a tweak on the old worst gets first system after it was tranparently exploited by Bill Fitch and the Rockets. It’s not perfect but it ain’t bad and still gives smaller markets a chance, especially now that player movement has increased.
Porkchop, you still have to prove that teams are tanking. Try going up to Dan Gilbert, Chris Grant, and/or Byron Scott, face to face, and accuse them of tanking the Cavs, and you’ll probably be thrown out and banned from the Q with a LeBron James Miami Heat jersey stapled onto your skin.
I agree with this or just let everyone have the same percentages to get the top pick and every other pick.
not only that but then we end up in the situation nearly every year where the Chicago “no-Rose” and Orlando “no-Penny” teams that barely missed the playoffs end up getting that superstar and the worst teams are out of the running before the season even starts.
imagine being a King or Bobcat fan (or Cavs fan for that matter) and know that your team has no shot at the best player in the draft despite being one of the worst teams. that is what such a system does.
hope drives attendance and viewing of the bad teams. less hope = less fans
what about after the top3 picks are handed out though?
Start Luc and Luke lets go down in a blaze of glory!!!!
I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say, but because you can’t understand that getting a top 3 pick is more helpful to this team winning a championship than the 7th or 8th pick, you want the cavs to win?
Exactly. So many people complain about tanking, then refuse to offer a system that gives a legitimately bad team the best chance to get better.
I always want to see the Cavs win, no matter what position they’re in.
If I was responsible for building a team, I keep all of my options open. I would ignore people telling me to ignore free agency because of their claims that no one wants to play here. I’ll do my homework and make trades when there’s a need to do so. I’ll find good players in the D-league. And I’ll make sure to conduct enough research to pick the best player(s) in the Draft that fill a need for this team. So really I don’t care if we get the 1st or the 30th pick, I’ll make it work to our team’s advantage. Contact Mark Price, or Carlos Boozer for additional reference if you need to.
The first part of my previous post was a thought that I had about weather or not a mentality of being rewarded for intentionally making mistakes and failing all the time can work outside of basketball and in real life. So far, I can’t think of anything that pans out. So I’m willing to change my stance on tonight’s game if anyone can show me a way to get rewarded for making mistakes and failing all of the time.
Willing to take a shot Steve? Anyone else?
Ok. First things first. I am sure the FO is doing plenty of research into FA, trades, DLeague scouting, and the draft.
Now, if the Cavs determine the best player in this draft is Anthony Davis, they need the 1st overall pick to get him. It’s really just about the odds of grabbing the best player are higher the higher you select.
In this particular draft, there seems to be a steep dropoff after 7/8 players. If we end up with the 8th worst record and get hopped by even 1 team below us in the lottery, then we pick 9th and miss out on that tier.
it’s possible to find players that will be better, but it’s not as likely. you have to go off likelihoods.
all of that being said, the team on the floor and the coaches need to always try to win. you instruct the trainers to not allow players to come back unless 100% healthy, you trade away an essential backup that is going to hit FA and leave anyway (netting a 1st round pick), and you give your team a steady diet of young potential bench players from the Dleague to give yourself a jumpstart on that scouting.
in other words, you do exactly what Grant has done.
What works outside basketball doesn’t have much bearing on what works within the league. So, first off, we have to get away from that argument.
Second, as mgbode says, you have to give yourself the best odds. Yes, you can get a good player in the second round, but you can’t come close to guaranteeing it. Not even the Spurs hit on every pick, and I’d argue that a lot of the success they see out of their picks is not just getting talented guys, but an excellent culture and developmental process. The Clippers were taking guys that everyone liked and still ended up in the lottery every year. There’s more at play there.
This study from 82games.com is very helpful in seeing what you’re up against.
http://82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm
There is a steep curve downward from the #1 pick. You have to give yourself the best odds of winning a championship, not just winning tomorrow. Sometimes it’s a painful lesson.
On the NBA network broadcast on Mon., they said it was doubtful that the cavs would let Kyrie play.David Stern does not like teams that tank games.Irving should have played…crappily…and kept our hopes for another “miracle” in the lotto alive. Bullets just stole our karma,remember we didn’t quit in 11 and look where that got us.
I think you are missing the point by stapling things to me. I’m not accusing anyone of tanking. I’m simply saying that chaning how the Number one draft pick is awarded would change the incentive from “tanking” to attempting to win.
You’re absolutely right, there is no perfect system and some people would try to circumvent this one as well. I just don’t think that it would happen, or if it did I think its pretty fair to say that it would happen far less than the annual 8 team dive for the bottom that occurs now. Lets use this year as an example, there is zero chance that a team like the Knicks in 7th could tank without being vilified by the fans. Second you would be losing out on a lot of money even if it is for just one series. Playoff series bring in a lot of cash. 3rd and this is the big one to me, in any given year, the 6,7,8 seeds either have a very big or very narrow lead on 9,10. If that lead is big then tanking is almost impossible, making up more than 2-3 games at best in the loss collumn is tough. If that lead is narrow then it means that the difference between the 6,7,8 seeds and the 9,10 isn’t that different, so you are still getting a competitve game for the right to choose number 1. But you could tweak the system easily to fix this. Make 9 and 10 have to play each other and then move on in a back to back game against the 11th ranked team. This would mean you would have to dive out of the playoffs and then down 2 spots to gain a competitive advantage. Its not perfect but we’d get to see some great basketball, and most importantly good teams would have the opportunity to become great teams. To me the greatest advantages are not having to watch very good players languish without help in 8,9th seed purgatory, and not rewarding terribly managed franchises like Charlotte, or Minnesota with an endless stream of great talent.
Are you saying that the Cavs would have NO shot in a single game against the Milwaukee Bucks, Phoenix Suns, or Houston Rockets? No offense but right now the Cavs have an 8-10% chance of getting the number one pick. I would take a healthy Cavs unit (I’m betting Andy could “find” a way to play a one game playoff) against any of the above mentioned teams at better than 10% odds. This system absolutely punishes teams like Charlotte, or for years Minnesota. But why should they be rewarded? Why should player after player after player get relegated to teams run by crappy GM’s and owners who don’t care? Why should Michael Jordan be rewarded for terrible decisions. A better question is why did the Cavs who hung around the 8,9,10 record have to trade a fantastic point guard in order to tank to get Lebron James? Wouldn’t they have been better off keeping Miller and playing other crappy teams of that year for the right to take James? Even if they got the no.2 pick they still would have assets rather then the gutted roster that James inherited. Again its not perfect but its better than 2 months of teams playing putrid ball hoping for a 1 in ten chance of saving their franchise.
As an aside that I just thought of you could set a stipulation that to be eligible for this draft tourney you need to play in at least 85% of your teams games and have to have played at least 400 minutes (20 minutes a night over the last 20 games) to be eligible. This would help prevent teams from stashing guys.
But would you take Washington or Charlotte? Of course not.
The system does not punish Charlotte. Charlotte’s incompetence punishes Charlotte, and that’s something I, and I would think most non-Charlotte fans, am fine with. But you still have to give Charlotte chances to get better.
And yes, the Cavs would have been better off if they got to keep Miller, but you’re not saying that’s the best system if you’re Memphis or Denver.
How is it more beneficial to the league to help out the 10-14th worst teams at the expense of 1-4th worst? You might as well just contract those last few teams.
Like I said its not perfect, the only goal is to take away the incentive for teams to play crappy for an entire year, and then play really crappy for 10-20 games at the end of the year.
Remember we’re only talking a 1 game “series” in each round. Washington and Charlotte (well not this Charlotte team) would have a chance to win the tourney. Its not like Washington over Milwaukee would be a USA hockey level miracle.
The other thing is, we’re not only stopping tanking but we are putting the best players on teams where they can be seen and maximized right away. Kyrie Irvings first season was a lost cause, and so will his 2nd to a certain degree. Generally, it takes at least 3 years for young players to drag their team out of the depths. In this system they hit the ground running. Take the playoff race in the East this year. If the Cavs stayed at full strength all year they are right around the 8, 9 spot. Lets say they slide in and Philly drops into the draft tourney. Cavs lose out on a draft pick, but gain experience, and next year Philly has a key piece moves past them and then the Cavs get their draft pick. The same strategies of team building that go on now would keep happening only in reverse. The big differences are thay we don’t waste 1/5 of a players career on a bad team, and every game played by every team all year long actually counts.. The only thing I really don’t have an answer for is what do you do with teams like last years Clippers/Nets who didn’t make the playoffs but traded away the rights to their pick.
And you aren’t condemning the bad teams to an eternal purgatory, you are simply making them build a team of solid role players and then adding the star when they are ready to compete for a playoff spot.
if the Cavs had to play the Rockets, then the 76ers (who tanked to get into the tourney), then the Jazz in the fake-finals, I would give the Cavs about a 2% chance of navigating it.
I would give the Bobcats a negative chance. And the Wizards just above that.
And, do we really want the Knicks, Jazz, 76ers, Suns, and Rockets all tanking their way out of the playoffs? Heck, the Hawks, Magic, and other teams might go full-tank mode too if they don’t think they can win this year but see a chance to set themselves up long-term.
except for the bottom playoff teams who would mysteriously go on losing streaks to end the season. just changing who tanks (from a FO POV of course)
In that scenario we end up with the 4th or 5 pick in the draft, get another player, and next year we are either good and make the playoffs, or we just miss and then have an even better shot at the number one pick. The only differences are that we control our destiny, not Lottery God Stern, and these horrible end of season games would count. In the meantime every game the team plays is competitve, people are paying money to actually see their team compete and when they win those people don’t feel conflicted.
I also feel you and harv are overstating the ability to tank out of the playoffs. The bottom teams aren’t very good. Cavs, Wash, NO, win abou 1 ot of every 3 times out the door. Plus as I said, if you add in a cutoff point and minimum minutes played to be tourney eligible you make it real tough for a team sitting 6th to sit guys, drop 5-6 games in the loss column, and still have the talent to win the tourney with whatever depleted roster got them out of the playoffs. Add to that the owner is losing a ton on playoff money, the fans would poo their pants, and players would be fuming that they lost out on bonuses/exposure.
Even if it did happen occassionaly, and I’m sure it would with the 8th seed, I’m having trouble following your train of thought. You really would rather watch the embarrassing crap fest of 12 teams playing D-league callups in the hopes of winning an opportunity to draft no.1. Compare that to a system where maybe 1 or 2 teams tank out of the playoffs, but then have to win a tournament without whatever player good player they ditched to get there? Are you really happier watching the nightly crap show? Did you happen to catch Charlotte/Sacremento on Sunday? Wouldn’t you love to see Kyrie pushing himself right now, knowing that he controled the future success of his team? Just saying its at least got merit for discussion
I’m just going to keep this going because I’m done with school and have 3 days of next to nothing to do.
Right now the Knicks/76ers have a 4 game lead on Milwaukee. With a 20 game roster cutoff either of those teams would have to do something drastic to get out of the playoffs. Lets keep the Bucks constant at 10-10 over the final 20 which is actually slightly better than they have played. This means NY would have to go 5-15 to catch down with them. Thats a pretty serious dropoff, not something that is easy to do. Plus I’m pretty sure that the first time a team tanked out of the playoffs and got bounced in their first game and ended up with the worst pick, it would be the last time.
You’re set on absolutely undercutting the worst teams in the league and I’m not going to convince you otherwise that that is just a terrible idea. Like I said, just contract them. Of course, if the system was in place last year, then the Cavs likely pick 14th (and don’t get the Clippers pick, as they would likely get to pick at the top of the draft), and get Marcus Morris, whose 2.1 points and 0.7 rebounds per game would probably have propelled them all the way ahead of Charlotte this year, meaning we’d get to pick 13th this year, which Draft Express expects to be used on Damian Lilliard. Sounds like eternal purgatory to me.
How do we get the 4th or 5th pick? We’d be expected to lose in the first round, meaning, if I’m imagining the bracket correctly, we’d pick no better than 9th if we got all the favorable tiebreakers.
You’re setting up a system to prevent tanking, but you still have to give bad teams at least a decent chance to get better.
You can’t just take one year, because the Cavs made a concious decision last year to tank at the start of the year. Had this system been in place they wouldn’t have constructed a roster specifically for tanking. Yes they might not have ended up with the first pick, but they would have had the opportunity to get pieces and move up this year.
The Clippers, T-Wolves, have something like 5 winning seasons in the past 20 years combined, so you don’t have to contract because even bad teams find a way to make money. If you mismanage your team yes you will be stuck at the bottom forever, but that is true now.
The only thing this system would do is eliminate the incentive for tanking games, for all but a few rare occassions that would occur from time to time.
All I’m “set” on doing would be to ensure that the maximum number of teams play the maximum number of competitve basketball games to give fans the best possible product. If you like watching the second half of the season crap fest among the bottom 13 teams thats your thing and thats cool. I love basketball and would love to see more, games better played with more meaning.
Based on mgbode’s post I was assuming the Cavs could win at least their first game putting them in the top five.
How would this work? Take the bottom 12 teams. Give the four worst records an automatic by. The four best record teams get home court and the winners of these four games fly out to face the four worst teams on their home courts. At that point it just becomes an 8 team tourney.
This way you don’t kill the worst teams because they are guaranteed at least to pick in the top 8, plus they get a home game against a team on a back to back, to move into the top 4. This also encourages bad teams to not plan at the start of the year to be crap all year long because you are going to need a few players if you want a shot at number 1.
Again, its not perfect, nothing is. All it does is reduce the possibility of tanking and remove the possiblity that the commisioner uses the draft lottery to manipulate player movement. Oh and you get 11 extra really good games at the end of the year.
And even if a good team did tank to get into the bottom, think of the pressure on a team to win this thing. Imagine New York dropping games to get in and then getting bounced how fun would that be?
I kind of find it disconcerting that I seem to be the only person that is uncomfortable with a system that causes teams to have a vested interest in losing in about 25% of all the games played in the NBA?
I can go back for a lot of teams and show how they would consistently be at the bottom of the draft. I figured the very recent Cavs example would hit home well enough for you to understand. And do share how they were going to construct a semi-competitive roster last year or this (without Irving, remember?). I’d love to hear that one.
And Minnesota is the perfect counterexample to your system. They actually have had 8 winning seasons, because they got the chance to draft Kevin Garnett. Even poorly managed teams deserve a chance to pull themselves up.
You can sit here and say you’re only concerned about ending tanking, but you have to take in all the ramifications of your move. And when you force a Cavs team that surprisingly lost Lebron to take Morris and Lilliard instead of a chance at Irving, you’re doing a lot of harm.
Well, first, 14 teams miss the playoffs, so what happens to the other 2? They just get completely screwed here? No playoffs and no lottery?
And the Cavs, going on the road, against a borderline playoff team, and you’re assuming win? I don’t know what to say to that. Sure, it could happen and the odds aren’t terrible, but its a 30-40% chance. You can’t just assume that. At least you are giving the 4 worst teams a better chance than 5-8, that’s a bit better than nothing.
And you’re not getting 11 really good games, these aren’t good teams.
And you’re not the only person bothered by the system, but there’s not much you can do about it without screwing with a lot of other stuff. The fact of the matter is that as you get closer to the #1 pick in the NBA draft, it becomes exponentially more valuable. One guy can make enough of a difference as immediately as next year that its worth it to tank, and there’s never going to be anything you can do to change that.
And, and, and, you seem kinda angry about this whole thing. It was just food for thought, sorry for getting you worked up.