I want the Jazz to lose.

[Schrödinger's Gerbil]

Lauri hasn’t changed. Just look at how our guards (except Collier) play, and you can see why Lauri’s FG attempts are down. Put Lauri on a team that moves the ball, and he'll shine as before.

That may be. I hope so.

 

[fishonjazz]

That's a lot of assumptions about Lauri's state of mind, what was told him during negotiations, and what other factors contributed to his decision. Life rarely presents such clear binary explanations.

Quick question, do you think he thought the jazz were shooting for the playoffs this season? Lolololololololmao

If he did then we have to circle back to the chance that he night be an idiot.

 

[Schrödinger's Gerbil]

Quick question, do you think he thought the jazz were shooting for the playoffs this season? Lolololololololmao

If he did then we have to circle back to the chance that he night be an idiot.

Quick answer: no. Lolololololomao.

You have no inside info about the details of the negotiations, including what promises, assurances, conditions, etc. were discussed and how they and other factors influenced Lauri's decision to sign. Don't pretend you do. You've no reason to be so confident that it yields itself to your simplistic binary explanation.

 

[Schrödinger's Gerbil]

How did the Spurs get Wemby?

Exactly.

No pain, no gain.

Here's the Spurs' record over the last five years: 23-24: 22-60; 22-23: 22-60; 21-22: 34-48; 20-21: 33-39; 19-20: 32-39.

That's a hell of a lot of pain. The Spurs got Wemby out of sheer dumb luck, not because of some galaxy-brain strategy. All the other teams in the lottery didn't get him. What gain did they get for their pain?

Five years is a pretty freak'n long time for a fan base to suffer like that. What is the minimum payoff you'd expect to make it worthwhile?

This post illustrates the classic reasoning fallacy of focusing on the hits while ignoring the misses, which are often a large multiple of the hits. Another common reasoning fallacy on display here is focusing on the odds of winning while minimizing the much greater odds of losing (i.e., let's endure years of suffering for a 14% chance, at best, of striking gold and ignore the 86% chance we don't strike gold). The odds are actually much lower than 14% given that a Wemby-calibre player comes around only very sparingly.

I'm curious whether other situations exist where collective brain trust is so praised for making low-odds, risky bets and trashing their product in the process based on little more than a hope and prayer that they beat the odds and, literally, win the lottery.

 

[fishonjazz]

Quick answer: no. Lolololololomao.

You have no inside info about the details of the negotiations, including what promises, assurances, conditions, etc. were discussed and how they and other factors influenced Lauri's decision to sign. Don't pretend you do. You've no reason to be so confident that it yields itself to your simplistic binary explanation.

I do know a few things. He intentionally signed at a time that wouldn't allow him to be traded and he had to know the jazz were going to suck.

Looking at those 2 known things it's pretty easy to also know that Lauri was/is fine with the tank.

 

[sip]

Here's the Spurs' record over the last five years: 23-24: 22-60; 22-23: 22-60; 21-22: 34-48; 20-21: 33-39; 19-20: 32-39.

That's a hell of a lot of pain. The Spurs got Wemby out of sheer dumb luck, not because of some galaxy-brain strategy. All the other teams in the lottery didn't get him. What gain did they get for their pain?

Five years is a pretty freak'n long time for a fan base to suffer like that. What is the minimum payoff you'd expect to make it worthwhile?

This post illustrates the classic reasoning fallacy of focusing on the hits while ignoring the misses, which are often a large multiple of the hits. Another common reasoning fallacy on display here is focusing on the odds of winning while minimizing the much greater odds of losing (i.e., let's endure years of suffering for a 14% chance, at best, of striking gold and ignore the 86% chance we don't strike gold). The odds are actually much lower than 14% given that a Wemby-calibre player comes around only very sparingly.

I'm curious whether other situations exist where collective brain trust is so praised for making low-odds, risky bets and trashing their product in the process based on little more than a hope and prayer that they beat the odds and, literally, win the lottery.

You are missing one huge point and that is the spurs were actually trying during the 19-20, 20-21 and 21-22 seasons and those are hands down the most painful seasons. Nothing is worse than being mediocre and stuck in that middle ground. The bottom line for the jazz is they still need a massive talent infusion to have any chance of competing for a title and that is only coming through the draft. I can only imagine how pissed off this board would be if we were fighting for a play in spot again and giving our draft pick to the thunder.

 

[underdog]

The argument that "one can't offer criticism unless one can also offer solutions" is silly. It's a common rhetorical device used by people to deflect criticism, shut down opposition, and spare them the bother of crafting a counterargument. People can be reasonably astute at identifying that a problem exists but simultaneously lack the information or hubris to pretend to have the answer. (Mostly when they DO think they have the answer, it is uninformed hubris.) For example, it doesn't take a genius to recognize that homelessness is a problem; however, this line of reasoning would preclude anyone from stating this unless they had a solution for it. Good luck with that.

But you're right. The situation is complex. I don't have an answer. I have some ideas, but I haven't studied it or thought about it enough to pretend I know the answer. But I do believe a problem exists. I recognize fully that the current system incentivizes it, and I don't blame teams for doing it. However, I dislike it intensely. I think it hurts the credibility of the league, produces an unentertaining product, is a disservice to fans, and yields questionable efficacy (depending on what its objectives are).

I said we shouldn’t criticize the league for the problems (with tanking) unless we can present a better solution than what’s already in place. And you called that “silly” and said it’s ok to identify a problem without giving a solution. You said, “It doesn't take a genius to recognize that homelessness is a problem; however, this line of reasoning would preclude anyone from stating this unless they had a solution for it. Good luck with that.” Well, you’re tangling things up here. Recognizing is not the same as criticizing.

 

[underdog]

Here's the Spurs' record over the last five years: 23-24: 22-60; 22-23: 22-60; 21-22: 34-48; 20-21: 33-39; 19-20: 32-39.

That's a hell of a lot of pain. The Spurs got Wemby out of sheer dumb luck, not because of some galaxy-brain strategy. All the other teams in the lottery didn't get him. What gain did they get for their pain?

Five years is a pretty freak'n long time for a fan base to suffer like that. What is the minimum payoff you'd expect to make it worthwhile?

This post illustrates the classic reasoning fallacy of focusing on the hits while ignoring the misses, which are often a large multiple of the hits. Another common reasoning fallacy on display here is focusing on the odds of winning while minimizing the much greater odds of losing (i.e., let's endure years of suffering for a 14% chance, at best, of striking gold and ignore the 86% chance we don't strike gold). The odds are actually much lower than 14% given that a Wemby-calibre player comes around only very sparingly.

I'm curious whether other situations exist where collective brain trust is so praised for making low-odds, risky bets and trashing their product in the process based on little more than a hope and prayer that they beat the odds and, literally, win the lottery.

After reading your post, I wonder if you’ve ever considered that teams choose to pivot and tank when it’s their best or sometimes only reasonable option in their situation to move forward.

 

[Schrödinger's Gerbil]

After reading your post, I wonder if you’ve ever considered that teams choose to pivot and tank when it’s their best or sometimes only reasonable option in their situation to move forward.

I have considered it. I've stated clearly that I understand the strategic reasons for tanking. I also understand why teams do it. I've conceded that the existing incentive system incentivizes tanking. I question, however, it's efficacy, depending on what one's goals are. I'm also skeptical that it's the only or necessarily best solution teams have combined with the existing conventional wisdom/group think that accepts tanking as the "de facto" strategy as received fact. I also question it's costs vs. its benefits, including to long-suffering fan bases who are required to put up with season after season of purposeful losing and to the league as a whole in terms of its popularity, credibility, and integrity. As a fan, I want to be entertained. Purposively putting a lousy product on the floor is not entertaining. I'm not sure that 5 years of sucking are worth 5-6 years, or whatever it is, of being relevant. Finally, I am critical of the championship or bust (i.e., Ringz Culture) that dominates today's NBA discourse and strategic thinking. I would rather watch entertaining, competitive, meaningful basketball year after year, even if it doesn't lead to a title, than purposefully losing for several years in exchange for a modest, at best, increase in the odds of winning a title.

With all that said, tanking is the world we currently live in. I suspect one of two things, or both, are going to happen. 1) Teams are going to reassess the efficacy of tanking and its costs to the franchise and fanbase and will get more creative in team-building strategy, and 2) the league will intervene to disincentivize tanking. Received wisdom is constantly shifting, people innovate, and rules change. We'll see. I've no crystal ball. If I did, I'd be making a helluva lot more money than I currently am.

 

[Schrödinger's Gerbil]

I said we shouldn’t criticize the league for the problems (with tanking) unless we can present a better solution than what’s already in place. And you called that “silly” and said it’s ok to identify a problem without giving a solution. You said, “It doesn't take a genius to recognize that homelessness is a problem; however, this line of reasoning would preclude anyone from stating this unless they had a solution for it. Good luck with that.” Well, you’re tangling things up here. Recognizing is not the same as criticizing.

Identify or reconize vs. criticize is a difference without a distinction in this context. My point remains equally valid. It's a silly requirement to proscribe criticizing some action without simultaneously offering a solution. We can use the homeless problem again. Let's say a government policy to address homelessness doesn't in fact reduce it but in fact increases it or creates some other serious and adverse second-order effects. So, your argument means that, were you to notice a spike in homelessness in response to a policy to reduce it, you'd have no legitimate right to criticize the policy unless you had a viable alternative to offer. That is silly. Moreover, any solution you did offer would almost certainly be based on ignorance. After all, you possess no specialized insight or expertise on homelessness.

 

[underdog]

I have considered it. I've stated clearly that I understand the strategic reasons for tanking. I also understand why teams do it. I've conceded that the existing incentive system incentivizes tanking. I question, however, it's efficacy, depending on what one's goals are. I'm also skeptical that it's the only or necessarily best solution teams have combined with the existing conventional wisdom/group think that accepts tanking as the "de facto" strategy as received fact. I also question it's costs vs. its benefits, including to long-suffering fan bases who are required to put up with season after season of purposeful losing and to the league as a whole in terms of its popularity, credibility, and integrity. As a fan, I want to be entertained. Purposively putting a lousy product on the floor is not entertaining. I'm not sure that 5 years of sucking are worth 5-6 years, or whatever it is, of being relevant. Finally, I am critical of the championship or bust (i.e., Ringz Culture) that dominates today's NBA discourse and strategic thinking. I would rather watch entertaining, competitive, meaningful basketball year after year, even if it doesn't lead to a title, than purposefully losing for several years in exchange for a modest, at best, increase in the odds of winning a title.

With all that said, tanking is the world we currently live in. I suspect one of two things, or both, are going to happen. 1) Teams are going to reassess the efficacy of tanking and its costs to the franchise and fanbase and will get more creative in team-building strategy, and 2) the league will intervene to disincentivize tanking. Received wisdom is constantly shifting, people innovate, and rules change. We'll see. I've no crystal ball. If I did, I'd be making a helluva lot more money than I currently am.

Ok you start your post by saying you understand why teams tank, but then you give a lot of reasons why they shouldn’t. What would you do if you were a GM for the Nets, Raptors, Hornets, Wizards, Pelicans, and Jazz (all tanking this season)? What would be your alternative for each team, given their situations? Don’t forget to be specific in your answer (consider cap, roster, salaries, draft assets, and everything else a GM needs to think about). Let’s hear it.

 

[underdog]

Identify or reconize vs. criticize is a difference without a distinction in this context. My point remains equally valid. It's a silly requirement to proscribe criticizing some action without simultaneously offering a solution. We can use the homeless problem again. Let's say a government policy to address homelessness doesn't in fact reduce it but in fact increases it or creates some other serious and adverse second-order effects. So, your argument means that, were you to notice a spike in homelessness in response to a policy to reduce it, you'd have no legitimate right to criticize the policy unless you had a viable alternative to offer. That is silly. Moreover, any solution you did offer would almost certainly be based on ignorance. After all, you possess no specialized insight or expertise on homelessness.

I disagree. We can be unhappy about a solution, cry about it (as people often do), etc., but I don’t think we should criticize whoever put it in place unless we can provide a better solution or tell where to find it. It’s as simple as that—nothing “silly” about it.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

Ok you start your post by saying you understand why teams tank, but then you give a lot of reasons why they shouldn’t. What would you do if you were a GM for the Nets, Raptors, Hornets, Wizards, Pelicans, and Jazz (all tanking this season)? What would be your alternative for each team, given their situations?

You can't talk about the current "situation" of this team without considering the path that led us here. It happened purely by design.

After the Gobert and Donovan trades, the Jazz had a surprisingly good team, with an All Star who was a top 20 player that season and only just entering his prime. An over-achieving group of rejuvenated vets, journeymen and talented guys playing with chips on their shoulders. In another words... a team everyone loved to watch.

At that point, a choice was made to hit the brakes and the slow descent to the bottom of the barrel started. None of this was inevitable. That's the "situation" we should be talking about, not this end result of a self-inflicted disaster.