Culture of winning or tank?

[The Midnight]

Even if the Jazz didn't have their own pick, I think Ainge still would have made this trade. Trading away a 33 year old who you don't think will help the new team grow well for a player who you think will just makes sense.

Trading Bojan for Olynyk and not even getting 2nd round pick is not a fair trade in any Universe unless you're tanking.

You have your opion, I have mine.

 

[MT Steve]

Trading Bojan for Olynyk and not even getting 2nd round pick is not a fair trade in any Universe unless you're tanking.

You have your opion, I have mine.

I think you just don't know what tanking means and for some reason consider it synonymous with rebuilding.

 

[The Midnight]

I think you just don't know what tanking means and for some reason consider it synonymous with rebuilding.

Like I said I consider trading Bojan for Olynyk a tanking move considering the disparity in the players value and since you didn't get even a 2nd round.

Most pundits have given the Jazz a really bad grade for that trade here they even gave us a D+ grade.

Trade grades: Pistons steal Bojan Bogdanovic, hit home run with deal; underwhelming move for Jazz

It looks like Detroit is trying to take a step forward in 2022-23

www.cbssports.com

It's a D+ grade, so to me the only reasonable explanation is that we want to be bad. And to me that's tanking.

 

[MT Steve]

Like I said I consider trading Bojan for Olynyk a tanking move considering the disparity in the players value and since you didn't get even a 2nd round.

Most pundits have given the Jazz a really bad grade for that trade here they even gave us a D+ grade.

Trade grades: Pistons steal Bojan Bogdanovic, hit home run with deal; underwhelming move for Jazz

It looks like Detroit is trying to take a step forward in 2022-23

www.cbssports.com

It's a D+ grade, so to me the only reasonable explanation is that we want to be bad. And to me that's tanking.

I gave another explanation as to why a rebuilding team might want to trade away a 33 year old, multiple times, but your preference seems to be to completely ignore it.

 

[idiot]

Randomness suggests there is no order or pattern… the math says otherwise. The actual homework you did showed the teams that landed difference makers were more likely in the bottom 2-3… why is that? Is it random… or is it because their odds at landing top 4 are better? It’s not random… it’s math.

It’s not just 1 or 2… you really want to be top 5…

The first part is simply not true, at least in the way that I think we normally use "random" (certainly in the way I'm trying to use it). Randomness is a feature of probability. You can't predict the next outcome or any single outcome after that, so it is random in that sense. But it's also mathematical in the sense that over many outcomes (a long period of time in terms of the NBA lottery) patterns can be predicted with a fairly high likelihood.

Of course the probability is higher to get a "good" outcome with a lower finish. (But the top (by far, I'd argue) outcomes in the example I gave went to teams that finished in positions 7 & 8 (Ja and Zion)). So in the limited history we have so far with the current lottery odds, it hasn't helped all that much to finish as first or second worst. If you want to take a 100-year sample (maybe even a 50-year sample), then yeah, it will probably be better for the teams that finish 1st and 2nd worst. But I don't think it's worth the wait of keeping our team bad that long to find out. The likelihood of this higher probability being helpful in any singular draft is not very high.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that the odds are simply not so good even for the best-odds result to reliably use that strategy as the central strategy for team-building.

 

[framer]

Like I said I consider trading Bojan for Olynyk a tanking move considering the disparity in the players value and since you didn't get even a 2nd round.

Most pundits have given the Jazz a really bad grade for that trade here they even gave us a D+ grade.

Trade grades: Pistons steal Bojan Bogdanovic, hit home run with deal; underwhelming move for Jazz

It looks like Detroit is trying to take a step forward in 2022-23

www.cbssports.com

It's a D+ grade, so to me the only reasonable explanation is that we want to be bad. And to me that's tanking.

The Jazz wanted a stretch center to run the offense they want to implement. Has there been a deal for unprotected firsts, they would have taken that. There wasn't so they got the player Hardy likely wanted and got some breathing room under the cap. I also think they wanted to develop Lauri and swapping Bojan for Olynyk has been working thus far for that end.

It would have been nearly impossible to strip the entire Jazz team before the season for parts without losing a tremendous amount of value. They have worked down the list hitting their priorities as they go. I'm pretty sure resolving the Rudy Gay situation is pretty high on the list. Losing 60 games is probably pretty low on the list. Developing Hardy is pretty high. Trading Conley looks to be a lot lower.

They have a plan, some parts have been wildly successful, others are still in progress and the Jazz seem to be extremely patient.

 

[The Midnight]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what we say anyway, let's see what Ainge does from here on out.

Will he be keeping the likes of Conley, Beasely, Clarkson, etc.. and keep the "winning culture" going?

Or will he be trading them out for a better chance to get Wembenyama.

 

[idiot]

They were bad for a number of years go read my post earlier in the thread.

They weren't bad because they were tanking. They were bad just because they were bad.

And they didn't get good until they hit on a bunch of picks in what most people here would regard as the absolute worst place to finish (mid-to-low lottery).

 

[idiot]

Tanking and winning cultures are not mutually exclusive guys c’mon.

This is one thing I (at least partially) agree with you on. It's not an either/or proposition. But I also agree with those who believe that it's hard to establish winning cultures if your method of tanking is to be as bad as possible for multiple years and to give up institutionally on rewarding competitiveness.

 

[Ben10]

This is one thing I (at least partially) agree with you on. It's not an either/or proposition. But I also agree with those who believe that it's hard to establish winning cultures if your method of tanking is to be as bad as possible for multiple years and to give up institutionally on rewarding competitiveness.

This

 

[Domino]

I don’t like the people who were so bought into the tank their already rooting for losses I’d much rather have fun watching this team of payers who actually care and are quite frankly way better to watch than any of the past jazz iterations than root for them to fail for a 14 percent chance at a player I think will be an injury prone bust so no I will not embrace the tank and I’m gonna have fun this season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Agent#00]

Winning! We are fun to watch

 

[KqWIN]

The first part is simply not true, at least in the way that I think we normally use "random" (certainly in the way I'm trying to use it). Randomness is a feature of probability. You can't predict the next outcome or any single outcome after that, so it is random in that sense. But it's also mathematical in the sense that over many outcomes (a long period of time in terms of the NBA lottery) patterns can be predicted with a fairly high likelihood.

Of course the probability is higher to get a "good" outcome with a lower finish. (But the top (by far, I'd argue) outcomes in the example I gave went to teams that finished in positions 7 & 8 (Ja and Zion)). So in the limited history we have so far with the current lottery odds, it hasn't helped all that much to finish as first or second worst. If you want to take a 100-year sample (maybe even a 50-year sample), then yeah, it will probably be better for the teams that finish 1st and 2nd worst. But I don't think it's worth the wait of keeping our team bad that long to find out. The likelihood of this higher probability being helpful in any singular draft is not very high.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that the odds are simply not so good even for the best-odds result to reliably use that strategy as the central strategy for team-building.

You’re right on all of this.The unfortunate reality is that there is no benefit to not tanking in the NBA. So however marginal the gains are for a single year, there are no gains for winning 20 games versus 30 games. In theory you should have more to begin with at 30 games. But it really depends on what’s delivering you those 30 games in terms of what that means for the future.

Generally, tanking is an often overrated strategy in my opinion. But the obsession of tanking is just a symptom of how fans have started to view the NBA. The NBA is not a league that lives on day to day competition. People don’t care about day to day competition, the only thing that matters is the future and the larger context. Winning games does not matter unless it means something for tomorrow.

I do feel like people buy into tanking because there is feeling that the team is working towards a title…even if they are disregarding the extremely low probability and unreliability of that strategy.

OTOH, I don’t really buy into the negative effects of tanking. I don’t think a culture is created when you win 30 games versus 20. If you win 30 games on the backs of vets who won’t be here in a couple years, you are worse off than the team that wins 20 on the backs of young players who are talented but simply not experienced enough and/or not ever going to be good enough. This is true independent of the draft incentive.

Also….More wins =\= better culture. You can win the maximum amount of games, have everyone happy, and it still be a negative basketball culture IMO. The most recent version of the Jazz was a perfect example. Trust team had its ups and downs, and there was constant talk about whether or not the players were best buds. Truth is, I don’t think the buddy buddy stuff mattered. I think the reason they failed is because they built bad habits during the regular season that set them up to fail in the preseason. This was true when they were best buds and had the best record and also when they were passive aggressively throwing jabs at each other in the media. The noise didn’t matter….what mattered is that they built a rigid brand of basketball that could not compete in the playoffs and did not have the ability to divert from their habits. You can obviously build bad habits from being in a situation where wins don’t matter, but that can also happen when trying to maximize wins.

 

[hgb]

The Bojan trade nets us no pick, yet Ainge still made that trade. Explain that to me @MT Steve

The fact that we traded him for a very solid vet doesn't exactly scream tanking, does it? 2 games in, it's pretty obvious that KO is helping us win games (as Bojan also surely would've done, but we got younger, saved money and we've got Kelly next year if we want to).

 

[idiot]

You’re right on all of this.The unfortunate reality is that there is no benefit to not tanking in the NBA. So however marginal the gains are for a single year, there are no gains for winning 20 games versus 30 games. In theory you should have more to begin with at 30 games. But it really depends on what’s delivering you those 30 games in terms of what that means for the future.

Generally, tanking is an often overrated strategy in my opinion. But the obsession of tanking is just a symptom of how fans have started to view the NBA. The NBA is not a league that lives on day to day competition. People don’t care about day to day competition, the only thing that matters is the future and the larger context. Winning games does not matter unless it means something for tomorrow.

I do feel like people buy into tanking because there is feeling that the team is working towards a title…even if they are disregarding the extremely low probability and unreliability of that strategy.

OTOH, I don’t really buy into the negative effects of tanking. I don’t think a culture is created when you win 30 games versus 20. If you win 30 games on the backs of vets who won’t be here in a couple years, you are worse off than the team that wins 20 on the backs of young players who are talented but simply not experienced enough and/or not ever going to be good enough. This is true independent of the draft incentive.

Also….More wins =\= better culture. You can win the maximum amount of games, have everyone happy, and it still be a negative basketball culture IMO. The most recent version of the Jazz was a perfect example. Trust team had its ups and downs, and there was constant talk about whether or not the players were best buds. Truth is, I don’t think the buddy buddy stuff mattered. I think the reason they failed is because they built bad habits during the regular season that set them up to fail in the preseason. This was true when they were best buds and had the best record and also when they were passive aggressively throwing jabs at each other in the media. The noise didn’t matter….what mattered is that they built a rigid brand of basketball that could not compete in the playoffs and did not have the ability to divert from their habits. You can obviously build bad habits from being in a situation where wins don’t matter, but that can also happen when trying to maximize wins.

Agree on a lot of things here:

• not enough benefit in the NBA for non-playoff team wins
• not enough on the day-to-day rewards of winning (though hard to know how to fix this with an 82-game schedule)
• the overrating of tanking by NBA fandom/media

I also am with you that winning is not the same as culture, though I think there is some relationship there. I do think culture matters (though agree culture isn't the same as getting along off the court). But culture is fragile -- it has a limited shelf life in many instances, and I tend to think that the Jazz needed a break-up in part for cultural reasons. I'll only partially agree with you on the idea of rigid style of play (though I will say that along with the cultural elements it proved the Jazz's downfall). But I don't want to get into a Quin/DL/etc. argument.

I'll probably also disagree partially on the vets vs. young guys argument. But this will probably be the ongoing themes of Jazzfanz this year, so there will be plenty of time later to go into that.

 

[Keefe]

I know culture is important but the tank is far more important. Elite players is what wins rings. No elite player will ever sign in Utah unless drafted by Utah. We need to tank to get that elite player. He won’t have to be drafted in the top two (Wemby, Scoot) necessarily but we likely need a top 5-7 pick, and if we don’t get one, we will need to be extremely lucky that whoever we draft at #10 (hypothetically) hits and becomes ala Kawhi or whoever else.

Again, this isn’t to say culture isn’t hugely important. It is. But right now, tanking, far and away is more important. And that’s why the signing of someone like Olynyk baffled me.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

The first part is simply not true, at least in the way that I think we normally use "random" (certainly in the way I'm trying to use it). Randomness is a feature of probability. You can't predict the next outcome or any single outcome after that, so it is random in that sense. But it's also mathematical in the sense that over many outcomes (a long period of time in terms of the NBA lottery) patterns can be predicted with a fairly high likelihood.

Of course the probability is higher to get a "good" outcome with a lower finish. (But the top (by far, I'd argue) outcomes in the example I gave went to teams that finished in positions 7 & 8 (Ja and Zion)). So in the limited history we have so far with the current lottery odds, it hasn't helped all that much to finish as first or second worst. If you want to take a 100-year sample (maybe even a 50-year sample), then yeah, it will probably be better for the teams that finish 1st and 2nd worst. But I don't think it's worth the wait of keeping our team bad that long to find out. The likelihood of this higher probability being helpful in any singular draft is not very high.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that the odds are simply not so good even for the best-odds result to reliably use that strategy as the central strategy for team-building.

What are the odds we ever win a title… it’s not great… we are on team ****ing 49 and have won how many? Should we just fold due to the low probability? Should we just try to win as much as we can each year regardless of draft position? What is the reliable strategy that works so often in your text book? Guess what… every road leads to failure. So yes tanking has a low probability of working but it’s likely the most reliable way to regularly net superstar talent. It isn’t random that the best nba players are MUCH more likely to be drafted in the top 5… a single outcome may be unpredictable but that doesn’t mean it’s less reliable than other strategies. Any single outcome is generally unpredictable but I wouldn’t call it random… we don’t have to get 1 or 2 in this draft. Top 3 guys right now feel very likely to be great players. We are headed for the rough drafting range of 6-9 where it’s much more “random”.

There is math and probability wrapped into “tanking” that calling it random ignores.

 

[fishonjazz]

No, and I explained that in the exact post you got that quote from.

I think ainge tried to intentionally make the team bad to make our pick better this season. So does literally everyone who commentates and writes about the nba nationally and locally.
The jazz won 2 games that they weren’t supposed to win. That wasnt the plan.
I have enjoyed the wins and im fine with more winning but that wasnt the plan. The moves made did not indicate an attempt to win as many games as possible. This is pretty obvious.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

. Ainge thinks the way Olynyk plays is better for the development of the younger players on our new roster.

I notice you used the term “better for the development of the younger players” rather than “ainge thinks olynyk will help us get more wins”


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

I think you just don't know what tanking means and for some reason consider it synonymous with rebuilding.

Part of rebuilding is getting draft picks and having those draft picks be as good of picks as possible. Draft picks don’t help you win as you cant put them into a game. Rebuilding, especially rebuilding the way we did (trading all our best players) is synonymous with tanking.

We could have rebuilt around our all stars still in their primes and traded away bogey, royce, clarkson, and conley for a rebuild that keeps us looking like a competitive team that wants to win and that would be a rebuild that is not synonymous with tanking.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app