29 replies to this topic

[Adam Wolff]

Sometimes people forget that each player and coach is not the GM. If you're a player or coach, every minute of a game is part of your resume. Players aren't going to tank in hopes that some great young player will come in next year and save their team.

If anything, players might lose interest and not play as hard purely because the games don't really matter as much. I certainly wouldn't call that tanking though.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Sometimes people forget that each player and coach is not the GM. If you're a player or coach, every minute of a game is part of your resume. Players aren't going to tank in hopes that some great young player will come in next year and save their team.

If anything, players might lose interest and not play as hard purely because the games don't really matter as much. I certainly wouldn't call that tanking though.

The big fear with tanking is when star players sit out due to "odd" injuries. The GM has total control over that; he's the coach's boss -- he tells the coach to bench said player, said player gets benched.

That said, I don't believe the lottery is rigged or anything like that, but I do believe that teams tank.

[Spoonless]

Amusingly enough, Rome didn't seem to react much to the"do you still beat your wife" quip, especially when you see how self-righteous he got when Stern said Rome had made a career off of cheap thrills. I don't think Stern was necessarily out of line with the "beat your wife" comment. There's never been anything in the news about Rome beating his wife, so it works quite well as an example of how Stern felt about the NBA fix question. That said, the questions themselves aren't really comparable. Saying "no, the NBA lottery isn't fix" doesn't affirm that it has been fixed in the past, and it is Rome's job to ask that question when so many people are wondering about it.

I used to listen to Rome a lot; he was on the only station I could get decent reception on in a shop I worked in. I don't really like his solo ranting, but I do like his interviews.

I think that to a point, some of the commissioners have an inferiority complex about their organizations where they seem to do or say things that will keep them in the news as an individual. It's almost like MLB umpires showboating and making it about themselves. When you have these guys making significantly less money than the players they have authority over, I think it does a job to some of their egos. Of course, I'm just playing armchair psychologist so I could be way off.

[SammyBirdland]

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is the cliche example of a loaded question. David Stern got defensive and (incorrectly) accused Rome of asking him a loaded question, a question with no right answer. It was an uncomfortable question, but it wasn't a loaded question.

If Rome would have said "Is the lottery still rigged?", then Stern would have had a valid argument.

Loaded question
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]
Aside from being a logical fallacy, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.[2]
This fallacy should be distinguished from that of begging the question,[3] which offers a premise the plausibility of which depends on the truth of the proposition asked about, and which is often an implicit restatement of the proposition.[4]
The term "loaded question" is sometimes used to refer to loaded language that is phrased as a question. This type of question does not necessarily contain a fallacious presupposition, but rather this usage refers to the question having an unspoken and often emotive implication. For example, "Are you a murderer?" would be such a loaded question, as "murder" has a very negative connotation. Such a question may be asked merely to harass or upset the respondent with no intention of listening to their reply, or asked with the full expectation that the respondent will predictably deny it.

http://en.wikipedia....Loaded_question

[Oriole85]

The big fear with tanking is when star players sit out due to "odd" injuries. The GM has total control over that; he's the coach's boss -- he tells the coach to bench said player, said player gets benched.

That said, I don't believe the lottery is rigged or anything like that, but I do believe that teams tank.

If you don't mind could you give a specific example, preferably this year of a team tanking as you described with the "odd" injuries?

I agree with you if the tanking were to occur it would come from upper management, but I'm not quite sure why the coach who likely wouldn't have job the following year would go along with it.

[Pedro Cerrano]

If you don't mind could you give a specific example, preferably this year of a team tanking as you described with the "odd" injuries?

I agree with you if the tanking were to occur it would come from upper management, but I'm not quite sure why the coach who likely wouldn't have job the following year would go along with it.

I'm not gonna go through game logs of the bottom feeder teams this year and show where they tanked. I can tell you, as a Wizards fan, several players missed games due to odd injuries, or at least injuries that could have been played through.

A popular example, once cited a lot, is the 1984 Houston Rockets.

http://reclinergm.wo... ... -olajuwon/

[Oriole85]

I'm not gonna go through game logs of the bottom feeder teams this year and show where they tanked. I can tell you, as a Wizards fan, several players missed games due to odd injuries, or at least injuries that could have been played through.

A popular example, once cited a lot, is the 1984 Houston Rockets.

http://reclinergm.wo... ... -olajuwon/

The "strategy" didn't quite for the Wizards unless they were satsified with 3rd place when they should've gotten second. Were the orders from Grunfeld or Leonsis?

[Pedro Cerrano]

The "strategy" didn't quite for the Wizards unless they were satsified with 3rd place when they should've gotten second. Were the orders from Grunfeld or Leonsis?

Look, I don't know who gave orders, or if any orders were given. And, yes, the lottery screwed them, which it is kind of designed to do, but do you actually think the Wizards would rather have had worse odds (if they had finished 3rd)?

The Wizards played well down the stretch even though a few guys were out with planter fasciitis (sp?)...Nene missed a ton of games, Rashard Lewis missed games, Booker missed games. The severity of these injuries were very questionable.

[Oriole85]

Look, I don't know who gave orders, or if any orders were given. And, yes, the lottery screwed them, which it is kind of designed to do, but do you actually think the Wizards would rather have had worse odds (if they had finished 3rd)?

The Wizards played well down the stretch even though a few guys were out with planter fasciitis (sp?)...Nene missed a ton of games, Rashard Lewis missed games, Booker missed games. The severity of these injuries were very questionable.

No I don't think they'd rather worse odds, just pointing out the irony of your allegations. I don't think they purposely tanked, they just sucked.

[NewMarketSean]

Regardless of if the draft is fixed or not, the worst team in the NBA hasn't had the #1 overall pick in 2004 -- 8 years ago.

That, in and of itself, is wrong and needs to be changed.