What's new
By:

2024-2025 Tank Race

KqWIN said:
The thing is, "the stakes" of getting a win give are nothing. It is only negative for us to win. Now of course, winning can be a byproduct of young players playing well....but that is different from the vets winning us games. I don't think people really have a problem if our full young group gets wins. If you think you're arguing against someone who doesn't want our young guys to play well and win, I think you're arguing against a made up boogeyman.

No matter how little you think the benefit of losing a game is, it is more than the value of that win which is nothing. You can decide on a personal level how much the value of being 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. in lotto position is worth to you. What's considered marginal or significant is subjective. But that value is still non-zero where the value of winning on any given night is exactly zero.
Click to expand...
We're in a position where it's entirely possible that the ACTUAL impact of a random loss in February is negative (or a win could be positive).

Say #4 draft lotto position ends up with Cooper Flagg and #3 lotto position ends up with Tre Johnson. That's a low likelihood possibility, for sure, but it's still a many-times higher possibility than being in the 4th draft lotto position hurting our odds of getting Flagg compared to being at #1.

Of course, I agree with you that getting higher position in the lotto odds is overall MATHEMATICALLY better going into the lotto. But I hope you'll agree with me that this pertains what might happen in picks 5-7 far more than to anything else. There is a small (but very small) chance that the difference between a #4 and a #1, 2,or 3 pre-lotto position will hurt us in regards to the top four picks. But the lotto is a one-time event. The likelihood of this difference mattering is miniscule compared to the likelihood of this difference not mattering.

My point is that we're far, far more at the mercy of the lotto's uncertainty right now than we are able to say that any particular win or loss is going to hurt/help us.

(And as for who I was arguing against: I was arguing against @The Midnight who seemed convinced that we were destroying our chances at Bailey, Flagg, Harper if we don't shut down Lauri.)
 
idiot said:
We're in a position where it's entirely possible that the ACTUAL impact of a random loss in February is negative (or a win could be positive).

Say #4 draft lotto position ends up with Cooper Flagg and #3 lotto position ends up with Tre Johnson. That's a low likelihood possibility, for sure, but it's still a many-times higher possibility than being in the 4th draft lotto position hurting our odds of getting Flagg compared to being at #1.

Of course, I agree with you that getting higher position in the lotto odds is overall MATHEMATICALLY better going into the lotto. But I hope you'll agree with me that this pertains what might happen in picks 5-7 far more than to anything else. There is a small (but very small) chance that the difference between a #4 and a #1, 2,or 3 pre-lotto position will hurt us in regards to the top four picks. But the lotto is a one-time event. The likelihood of this difference mattering is miniscule compared to the likelihood of this difference not mattering.

My point is that we're far, far more at the mercy of the lotto's uncertainty right now than we are able to say that any particular win or loss is going to hurt/help us.

(And as for who I was arguing against: I was arguing against @The Midnight who seemed convinced that we were destroying our chances at Bailey, Flagg, Harper if we don't shut down Lauri.)
Click to expand...

Meh, results based analysis just isn't the way I would want this franchise run. If we end up 3rd and the 4th position ends up winning the lotto, I'm not going to look back and say it was incorrect to say we put ourselves in a better position by getting 3rd. We can't predict the future, we can only gives ourselves the best chance. You can only control what you can control, and just because something is mostly luck I don't think that means you should just ignore it altogether.

The point I was making is that it doesn't really matter how small you think the benefit is. What matters is that it's greater than zero and the value of playing Lauri and winning the game because we played him is actually zero. So when it comes to playing or sitting Lauri, I consider sitting him to be strictly better. It's not enough to say that the value of tanking is small, you need to argue that the value of trying to win (aka playing Lauri) is more. I am totally with you in saying that tanking is highly overrated, but I still come to the conclusion that we should sit the vets because there is no value to playing them.

Everybody knows we're at the mercy of the lotto. Yes, people can be hyperbolic and that's annoying, but when you get down to brass tacks it makes total sense why people want to sit Lauri and the vets. If you took a team in the opposite situation where they were trying to win, you could argue that any given regular season game is largely insignificant in their quest to win a title...and yet people still really want to win that game. Every game is mostly insignificant whether you're winning or losing, but on any given night you want to get the maximum value out of that game. For the Jazz, the maximum value is to lose.

Somewhat unrelated, but this is why I think any solution to tanking would be aided by incentives to win, not just decreasing the incentive to lose.
 
KqWIN said:
Meh, results based analysis just isn't the way I would want this franchise run. If we end up 3rd and the 4th position ends up winning the lotto, I'm not going to look back and say it was incorrect to say we put ourselves in a better position by getting 3rd. We can't predict the future, we can only gives ourselves the best chance. You can only control what you can control, and just because something is mostly luck I don't think that means you should just ignore it altogether.

The point I was making is that it doesn't really matter how small you think the benefit is. What matters is that it's greater than zero and the value of playing Lauri and winning the game because we played him is actually zero. So when it comes to playing or sitting Lauri, I consider sitting him to be strictly better. It's not enough to say that the value of tanking is small, you need to argue that the value of trying to win (aka playing Lauri) is more. I am totally with you in saying that tanking is highly overrated, but I still come to the conclusion that we should sit the vets because there is no value to playing them.

Everybody knows we're at the mercy of the lotto. Yes, people can be hyperbolic and that's annoying, but when you get down to brass tacks it makes total sense why people want to sit Lauri and the vets. If you took a team in the opposite situation where they were trying to win, you could argue that any given regular season game is largely insignificant in their quest to win a title...and yet people still really want to win that game. Every game is mostly insignificant whether you're winning or losing, but on any given night you want to get the maximum value out of that game. For the Jazz, the maximum value is to lose.

Somewhat unrelated, but this is why I think any solution to tanking would be aided by incentives to win, not just decreasing the incentive to lose.
Click to expand...
This.
Everyone knows we are gonna need luck. But every loss increases our chances to get lucky.
 
KqWIN said:
Meh, results based analysis just isn't the way I would want this franchise run. If we end up 3rd and the 4th position ends up winning the lotto, I'm not going to look back and say it was incorrect to say we put ourselves in a better position by getting 3rd. We can't predict the future, we can only gives ourselves the best chance. You can only control what you can control, and just because something is mostly luck I don't think that means you should just ignore it altogether.

The point I was making is that it doesn't really matter how small you think the benefit is. What matters is that it's greater than zero and the value of playing Lauri and winning the game because we played him is actually zero. So when it comes to playing or sitting Lauri, I consider sitting him to be strictly better. It's not enough to say that the value of tanking is small, you need to argue that the value of trying to win (aka playing Lauri) is more. I am totally with you in saying that tanking is highly overrated, but I still come to the conclusion that we should sit the vets because there is no value to playing them.

Everybody knows we're at the mercy of the lotto. Yes, people can be hyperbolic and that's annoying, but when you get down to brass tacks it makes total sense why people want to sit Lauri and the vets. If you took a team in the opposite situation where they were trying to win, you could argue that any given regular season game is largely insignificant in their quest to win a title...and yet people still really want to win that game. Every game is mostly insignificant whether you're winning or losing, but on any given night you want to get the maximum value out of that game. For the Jazz, the maximum value is to lose.

Somewhat unrelated, but this is why I think any solution to tanking would be aided by incentives to win, not just decreasing the incentive to lose.
Click to expand...
Your argument seems to have the assumption that sitting Lauri comes at no cost. Maybe that's the case. But it might not be. There are several ways I could imagine that sitting Lauri comes at a cost (or that him playing provides value). But I don't think any of us know what is at play (or have any way to estimate what the Jazz see as the value of Lauri playing).

As for the rest of the argument, I understand the point and I don't begrudge it. But I just don't see the value in "winning" the tank race. We're in a position where we're giving ourselves every chance to do well. And we're very unlikely to fall from that position. If 5th through 7th matters that much to you, have at it. I doesn't to me.
 
idiot said:
Your argument seems to have the assumption that sitting Lauri comes at no cost. Maybe that's the case. But it might not be. There are several ways I could imagine that sitting Lauri comes at a cost (or that him playing provides value). But I don't think any of us know what is at play (or have any way to estimate what the Jazz see as the value of Lauri playing).

As for the rest of the argument, I understand the point and I don't begrudge it. But I just don't see the value in "winning" the tank race. We're in a position where we're giving ourselves every chance to do well. And we're very unlikely to fall from that position. If 5th through 7th matters that much to you, have at it. I doesn't to me.
Click to expand...

There may be a conversation to be had about the indirect consequences, but I haven't heard an argument for the cost of sitting Lauri. What's certain is there is a non zero benefit for the L, no benefit for the W. Personally, I find that the indirect consequences are heavily in favor of tanking especially if you believe in playing time as a developmental resource. For me, the right amount of remaining games for Lauri to play might not be zero, but it's not far from it.

The value is pretty simple, you get more expected utility from the draft. How much that is, like I said it's subjective. Well, the actually odds are not, but the importance of those differences is. I find it hard to argue that having the difference between 5th and 7th best odds is not more meaningful than winning the 26th most games instead of 24th most wins.

It's kind of like tossing up a heave at the end of a quarter. Very little value in that shot and even if it goes in it does not necessarily mean it will change the outcome of the game. But you really should toss up the heave instead of letting the clock expire.
 
KqWIN said:
The thing is, "the stakes" of getting a win give are nothing. It is only negative for us to win. Now of course, winning can be a byproduct of young players playing well....but that is different from the vets winning us games. I don't think people really have a problem if our full young group gets wins. If you think you're arguing against someone who doesn't want our young guys to play well and win, I think you're arguing against a made up boogeyman.

No matter how little you think the benefit of losing a game is, it is more than the value of that win which is nothing. You can decide on a personal level how much the value of being 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. in lotto position is worth to you. What's considered marginal or significant is subjective. But that value is still non-zero where the value of winning on any given night is exactly zero.
Click to expand...
Great post.
 
KqWIN said:
The thing is, "the stakes" of getting a win give are nothing. It is only negative for us to win. Now of course, winning can be a byproduct of young players playing well....but that is different from the vets winning us games. I don't think people really have a problem if our full young group gets wins. If you think you're arguing against someone who doesn't want our young guys to play well and win, I think you're arguing against a made up boogeyman.

No matter how little you think the benefit of losing a game is, it is more than the value of that win which is nothing. You can decide on a personal level how much the value of being 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. in lotto position is worth to you. What's considered marginal or significant is subjective. But that value is still non-zero where the value of winning on any given night is exactly zero.
Click to expand...
But if we win every regular season game, make the playoffs, win every playoff game, we win the championship. That should have some value.
 
idiot said:
We're in a position where it's entirely possible that the ACTUAL impact of a random loss in February is negative (or a win could be positive).

Say #4 draft lotto position ends up with Cooper Flagg and #3 lotto position ends up with Tre Johnson. That's a low likelihood possibility, for sure, but it's still a many-times higher possibility than being in the 4th draft lotto position hurting our odds of getting Flagg compared to being at #1.

Of course, I agree with you that getting higher position in the lotto odds is overall MATHEMATICALLY better going into the lotto. But I hope you'll agree with me that this pertains what might happen in picks 5-7 far more than to anything else. There is a small (but very small) chance that the difference between a #4 and a #1, 2,or 3 pre-lotto position will hurt us in regards to the top four picks. But the lotto is a one-time event. The likelihood of this difference mattering is miniscule compared to the likelihood of this difference not mattering.

My point is that we're far, far more at the mercy of the lotto's uncertainty right now than we are able to say that any particular win or loss is going to hurt/help us.

(And as for who I was arguing against: I was arguing against @The Midnight who seemed convinced that we were destroying our chances at Bailey, Flagg, Harper if we don't shut down Lauri.)
Click to expand...

Getting #5 pick vs getting the #7 pick DOES make a difference.

If we do slip to #5 say on draft night, to me it’s much easier to trade up from a #5 and a say future first to say the #3 pick to grab Bailey or Harper (if we think he can be an All Stars, franchise changing, etc).

It would be much harder to trade up from #7.

And again like @KqWIN had alluded to, winning with vets right now nets us nothing. It makes no sense. If we sit Lauri and Collins and our young guys are good enough to win then so be it. But as of a couple of games ago Lauri was playing almost every game (which maybe changing now cos since the Houston win he had missed consecutive games for the first time in a month).
 
Zion having a hell of a game.
So far: 11-14 for 23 points, 9 rebounds and 10 assists.
 
Douchebag K said:
Pelicans pulling a few games ahead of us is the best hope Hornets are so bad they're probably incapable of picking up any wins
Click to expand...
Ya and I have been saying that if the pelicans continue to play Zion and McCollum (Murphy having a pretty good year too ) then we will get that 3rd spot.
People forget how good Zion is because he is fat and often injured. If he is on the court he is one of the best players in the league. Insanely efficient triple double tonight. Which is why I was one of the posters who wanted to trade for him if he were going for a discount.
Of course we have to keep sitting our versions of those guys.
 
fishonjazz said:
Ya and I have been saying that if the pelicans continue to play Zion and McCollum (Murphy having a pretty good year too ) then we will get that 3rd spot.
People forget how good Zion is because he is fat and often injured. If he is on the court he is one of the best players in the league. Insanely efficient triple double tonight. Which is why I was one of the posters who wanted to trade for him if he were going for a discount.
Of course we have to keep sitting our versions of those guys.
Click to expand...

mate i reckon another 1-2 wins from them in the next fortnight will prob seal it for us. Zion is too good to not win them some more games
 
Great day so far for he tank. Hornets winning is obviously better, but Dallas getting wins is the next best scenario. If the Lakers hold the lead against Minnesota then Dallas and Minny will be tied for 8/9. Minnesota ending up on the outside of the playin would be fantastic.
 
Douchebag K said:
mate i reckon another 1-2 wins from them in the next fortnight will prob seal it for us. Zion is too good to not win them some more games
Click to expand...
Looks to me like the Pels are happy to stay in 4-5th spot and are using this opportunity to showcase Zion for a trade in the offseason.

If that’s the case that bodes well for us and should take some pressure off.
 
The Jazz Wonderbra said:
Expect Collins and Lauri to play.
Click to expand...
How so?

Lauri had just missed his first consecutive games in a month.

My theory is after the Houston win Ainge got anxious and decided to chat with Lauri about sitting more games down the road. Hence the consecutive games missed.

With 24 games left in the season we’ll see how many games he ends up playing.

My guess is he’ll end up playing only about half if not less.
 
KqWIN said:
... but I haven't heard an argument for the cost of sitting Lauri.
Click to expand...
Really? I can think of at least a few possible costs (or maybe, more correctly, value for playing Lauri). Whether these are actually at play, I don't know, but they all seem like possible things:
  • Give Lauri more of a chance to practice his one-on-one skills and other "weaknesses" in a developmental season
  • Give the youngsters a chance to play with real, quality NBA players (which may help hasten their development)
  • Give Lauri a better chance to achieve individual goals (hard to do if they're not playing him)
  • Maybe even part of the negotiation that convinced him to stay in Utah was that he wouldn't be completely shut down even if there was a season devoted to young player development. So, it's possible that they feel that they owe it to him
  • Help make games more competitive, on the theory that young players develop faster when they aren't getting blown out most of the time
 
idiot said:
Really? I can think of at least a few possible costs (or maybe, more correctly, value for playing Lauri). Whether these are actually at play, I don't know, but they all seem like possible things:
  • Give Lauri more of a chance to practice his one-on-one skills and other "weaknesses" in a developmental season
  • Give the youngsters a chance to play with real, quality NBA players (which may help hasten their development)
  • Give Lauri a better chance to achieve individual goals (hard to do if they're not playing him)
  • Maybe even part of the negotiation that convinced him to stay in Utah was that he wouldn't be completely shut down even if there was a season devoted to young player development. So, it's possible that they feel that they owe it to him
  • Help make games more competitive, on the theory that young players develop faster when they aren't getting blown out most of the time
Click to expand...

Fans bought tickets to watch Lauri play. . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top