To Tank or Not to Tank and Who to take @ Number 8

I don’t think it surprised people that he wasn’t a franchise-type stud right out of the gate — he was only 18 — so much as that he barely even resembled the guy he was in college. Basically he stopped rebounding almost entirely (4.5 per 36 minutes after averaging 11 per 36 at UT) and became a glorified chucker. And even his chucking wasn’t very glorified. ROY aside, he was a below-average NBA player last year — not nearly as productive on a per minute basis as Anthony Randolph this year, for example.

This year, perhaps thanks in part to Scott Brooks, who seems to have instilled in him the fact that he’s a forward, not a shooting guard, he’s starting to look more like the stud he was in college. Still, until he picks up his defense a bit (see James, LeBron) and shows some consistent ability to improve his team when he’s on court (his plus/minus on the season is -6.1), the pre-draft talk of a generational Bird or Magic-type player seems greatly exaggerated.

It’s still best to have the highest draft pick, because you can choose anyone you want. A team at #5, or #8, or #13 cannot say the same. They have to draft your leftovers.

As I said, I think in trying to “rebut” stuff, you’ve kinda lost track of the point you were trying to make; and I think I’ve probably fallen into the same trap. Let me clarify for you my position on a few of these issues, to avoid any further confusion.

1. Obviously, I don’t support “first degree tanking” — which is to say, actually intentionally throwing games, WWF-style. Then again, I’m not sure “first degree tanking” even exists. It’s just not in players DNA to try to lose games; since their future contracts and professional reputation hinges on their performance and their numbers, it’s just not something that’s likely to occur, therefore not something that’s really worth discussing, or staking out a “position” on — much as it might make you feel morally good to show how much respect you have than other posters here for the “integrity of the game.”

2. “Second degree tanking” — which is to say, the coach and/or front office deciding to sit the vets and play the kids, knowing full well that it lowers their chances of winning games — is a more interesting and complicated case. On the one hand, I think the coach and/or FO owe it to the paying public to try their hardest to win every game. On the other hand, it’s not particularly clear that the vets on this team (Jack, Maggs, Craw, e.g.) give us any better chance of winning games than the kids (Morrow, Randolph, Wright, e.g.) Further, it’s also not particularly clear that the paying public would rather see the team win a meaningless late-season game than get a chance to have an extended look at the kids (again, to the extent that the two things are in opposition). I think if you polled the thoughtful regulars on this site, most of them they would say that at this point in the season they would rather see the kids play than go all out to win games by playing the vets. I think most would also say that if playing the kids also improves our chances at losing said late-season game, thereby improving our draft position, so much the better.

3. As fans, we have zero control over first-degree or second-degree tanking, so again, to spout off about how much you won’t abide tanking is pretty pointless. What we do have control over is what Bill Simmons calls “fantanking” — which is to say, whether or not to quietly root for the team to lose to improve its chances at a good draft pick. On the one hand, this kind of rooting can be seen as being realistic — accepting short term pain for the long-term benefit of the team I (see the Great Skeptic’s posts). On the other, as the Great Owen Ellickson says, “it’s gross.” While I basically share Skeptic’s postion on the matter, I respect and understand both positions. At the very least, I think if one is going to fantank, one should try to be discreet and unobnoxious about it.

4. Whether or not you support first degree tanking, second-degree tanking, or fantanking, the fact is it is better and more advantageous for a team to have a higher pick. The only exception to this would be a hypothetical situation where the draft experts and scouts sees no real drop-off in talent among the top players. This isn’t generally the case, though, and it isn’t the case this year, where basically every reputable scout agrees that Blake Griffin has a higher chance of being an impact player in the NBA than anyone else (except possibly Ricky Rubio).

5. Bringing up arbitrary data points (Roy > Bargnani, e.g.) doesn’t change the fact that it’s better and more advantageous to have a higher pick than a lower one. All it tells you is that — surprise! — the real world involves luck. Basically your argument, to the extent that you have one, seems to be that because your friend drove blind-drunk and blindfolded at 150 MPH and lived to tell about it, that there’s no good reason to drive sober, at a reasonable speed, and with your eyes open. Again, I think you’re obviously aware of the flaw in this reasoning, and you show it by saying, “No, you wouldn’t trade the pick straight up for a #7. At that instant, the #1 pick is worth more than a #7 pick.” The instant you’re referring to is of course the here and now, without the benefit of 20:20 hindsight — the instant in which we all make decisions.

In the here and now, which is where we are, any reasonable person would agree that it’s much better for the Warriors to have a high draft pick than a low one — and by extension, better to finish with a worse record than our closest competitor (Toronto). How, as a fan, to deal with that fact — whether to openly root for the team to lose, or quietly root for the team to lose, or root for the team to win no matter what the situation — is something on which reasonable people can disagree.

You begin with 240 totall minutes, so say you give an average of 34 minutes to each of those guys (theyve usually get A LOT more than that) That leaves you with 138 minutes to split beteween Watson, Monta, Azubuike, Morrow, Belinelli, Randolph, Wright, Turiaf, and Biedrins. Assuming you give zero minutes to Kurz or Davidson that means those guys average roughly 15 minutes a game. Considering Monta and Biedrins will get a lot more than that, it leaves all those other young guys who may or may not be a part of our future with less than 10 minutes per game. The “we can give plenty of time to the veterans and the kids too!” argument is ridiculous, its as though you don’t even recognize that there is a finite number of total minutes available. Theres a reason why you don’t see any team in the NBA utilizing a 12 man rotation, its just not feasible.