Reply With Quote
*runs away from thread and hides*
This subject has been discussed, in a number of different ways, and in a number of different threads. Timvp did a good write-up in which he talked about the reasons why the Lakers are the worst matchup for the Spurs. A number of people commented that it would be cowardly to avoid the Lakers in the post-season, or even in the regular season.
Tonight, in the post-game discussion after the Phoenix-Clipper game, they were discussing the same subject. Ernie Johnson asked Shaq directly if he had ever tanked a game to try and get a particular matchup in the playoffs. Shaq immediately said no, that he had never tanked a game. But then he went on to say that he had coaches and GM's who plotted those kinds of things. And he said that he had been called in near the ends of some seasons and told to take a night or two off. Then he said something even more interesting - he said that they never wanted to have to play Utah in the playoffs.
Think about that for a minute. That was one of the Laker "dynasty" teams. With, arguably two of the three best players in the league on a single roster. (Of course Tim Duncan was the third.) And here is Shaquille Oneal saying out loud that they specifically avoided a particular team in the post-season, to the point of tanking games at the end of the season, when necessary.
Now, does that make Phil Jackson, or those Laker teams cowards? Does it somehow tarnish any of the rings, or diminish the "dynasty", because they refused to play the game "the way it was supposed to be played"? Should the Lakers have just played those last few games to win, so that they could prove that they could have beaten the Jazz, in addition to winning an NBA Championship?
I can tell you this much: Shaq didn't seem even a tiny bit embarassed about it. He was pretty matter-of-fact when he said that the Lakers "always wanted to avoid the Jazz and that pick and roll". So maybe another question would be better: If the goal is to win a le, why would you intentionally choose a route that was harder than necessary?
*runs away from thread and hides*
Memphis did a very convincing job last season demonstrating that playoff matchup tanking works.
Memphis tanked to GET the #1 seed. I get the feeling that some people think that tanking to avoid the #4 seed is somehow not a respectable thing to do. I just wanted to make the point that the three-peat Lakers tanked to avoid a bad matchup. And that's straight from the horse's mouth.
Tactical retreat, Sun Tzu style.
timvp brought up Hakeem's Rockets and they tanked to avoid a bad matchup in the Sonics IIRC, and it paid off well for them
Interesting that Shaq brought up the Jazz pick and roll, even in his prime that was one of the key weaknesses in his game....damn felt like so long ago
IMO, if it takes having to reposition your seeding to give yourself the best possible chance at an NBA finals berth, I would totally do it. There is no shame and really nothing wrong with strategizing.
Oh, and it's probably worth mentioning that in the discussion leading up to that, Kenny Smith was pretty adamant in arguing that it's not fair to the fans to tank games, and that he thinks teams should ALWAYS play to win. (It sounded like one of the others was agreeing with him, but I had to leave the room for a minute so I'm not certain.) If Kenny Smith feels that way, I'm sure that there are lots of fans who think the same way.
Good pickup. Right after Shaq said that, Kenny Smith asked Shaq, "how come they didn't just call you into the office and teach you how to defend the pick and roll?"
It would be annoying to pay to see a playoffs team tank, but the 'real season' is in the playoffs. Us Spurs fans have had it pretty good, for an extreme tanking (or maybe just sucking) the Wolves haven't won a game in April for the past 4 years until tonight IIRC, they finally have built a talented squad.
I caught the end of the show, watching the Shaq fights in front of the MMA fighters was great. And how the did Ernie hit the studio
Good pickup. Right after Shaq said that, Kenny Smith asked Shaq, "how come they didn't just call you into the office and teach you how to defend the pick and roll?"
I think if the 1 seed in each conference was allowed to choose its opponent from 5 through 8 (and then the 2 seed chooses from what's left, and finally the 3 seed gets last pick) it'd make things rather interesting.
Seeds 5 through 8 no longer have an incentive to tank games, though on the flip side, if they are guaranteed a playoff spot near the end of the regular season and they're too far from the 3 seed (or 4 seed for HCA 1st round), they don't necessarily have an incentive to win games either now.
This system could really make regular season games near the end interesting for the 1 through 4 seeds, though.
This is an interesting idea. I think a minor modification might make it more feasible. We could let #1 pick between 7/8, and #3 get to pick between 5/6.
Thus it will eliminate tanking by 5/6 teams. Also, it's more fair to them as they don't want to get picked by a #1 team.
Phil Jackson never tanked he believed in playing every game including the meaningless ones. If your tanking what message does that send to fans. That they should stop watching or coming to games?
No. A Championship is a Championship.
Apparently we are only as good as our last game.
So we wait till after the game tonight to decide this question.
-Bipolar Spursfan
Popovich is one of, if not the best coach the Lakers have ever had.
So avoiding the Lakers may be a good thing out of respect for Pops abilities.
No Spurs championship team had fear of any opponent. Respect, for sure, but no fear. Those teams had to pass trough good teams. If they can't, it means the team isn't good enough.
The last 4 times the Spurs got eliminated in 08, 09, 10 and 11, the Lakers, Mavs, Suns and Grizzlies were much better teams, respectively. The Spurs had no business advancing further tbh.
They might have been avoiding Karl Malone's elbows.
This is an interesting topic. I know how critical matchups can be. That's why if you KNOW you can avoid a bad playoff matchup by losing one or two games at the end of the season on purpose, I could defend/accept that. Some would call that cowardly; others would call it strategy.
But as a Spurs fan, what I consider cowardly is seeing Pop forfeit so many games -- not late in the season when seeding is at stake, but basically during the entire season -- by sitting his best players so they "don't get hurt." (And I don't mean just for this season ... he's done this for a few years now, so there's a pattern of behavior.) I really despise this overprotective-mother approach that Pop has taken because I think it compromises the Spurs' mental toughness.
I was watching one of the NFL Network's programs about the Dallas Cowboys super bowl teams. They interviewed coach Jimmy Johnson, and he talked about the Pygmalion effect and his treatment and expectation of players. He didn't treat his players based on who they were, but rather as who they could and should be. And they ended up performing at that higher level.
Translate that into the Spurs situation, I wish Pop would stop treating his players like pieces of fine china who inevitably will crack. Treat them as who they could and should be: the world's best athletes, whose freakishly capable and resilient bodies will withstand the test of time.
I honestly think that Pop's coddling has been a contributing factor to some of Manu's injuries ... I think Manu EXPECTS to get hurt because his coach treats him that way, as if an injury is inevitable. How the else do you explain that BS injury at Phoenix last year. I mean, seriously, has anyone in the history of the NBA ever injured their arm like that? How many noses has Dirk broken with his elbow? How many other players this season have reached in for a steal and broken their hand? Why did Manu run face first into a sprinting opponent the other night? ... The more you expect to get hurt, the more you try to avoid it, the more likely it is to happen.
Last edited by Keepin' it real; 04-20-2012 at 09:37 AM.
Cowardly? Probably.
Smart? Definitely.
2 games in the midst of 40 games in which their overall record is 33-7.
using the last 1 or 2 games of the season to place yourself in optimal position = NOT COWARDLY
scheming more than 2 games knowing there are so many unknown factors that could come back to bite you = GAY
Um, try actually reading Shaq's words. Phil Jackson DID tank games, specifically to avoid the Jazz.
Of course it is cowardly.
Why does this question even have to be asked? This mentality of tanking games, resting players,etc...is a losing at ude IMO.
It used to be..."it's only pre-season...these games don't count."
Now,mainly because of Pop...it is..."it's only a regular season game...save it for the playoffs...health is the only thing that matters...blah-blah..."
Pretty soon it will be, "well Timmy sat in the first round of the playoffs...but it is only the first round...the second round is more important."
This is cowardly. Whatever happened to, "we'll play anyone-anytime...if we don't beat them then we don't deserve to be called champions."
Man up. Grow a in' pair already. If you paid most people millions to play a game they would kamikaze their way through the whole season and play with fire, passion and guts. They would feel insulted to even be accused of not giving 100 percent....tanking? You wouldn't in' even dare suggest that !.
Pussies.
Awwww, someone needs another hug. Here ya go:
I don't think it's a cowardly move but it's very risky. It's even harder than tanking for the draft. You're treading a thin line when you're tanking for seeding.
It's good strategy, but it just ruins the game for everybody, point blank. The game shouldn't have to be all about matchups. A championship team should be able to take on whatever is thrown their way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
