Run for Play-In

[TD 21]

He's always been overrated. Only got the Pelicans to the playoffs once. I always said LaMarcus was a way better player than him, since he could get a team into the first round by himself

Results without context. They were a mostly bad and chronically injured team. The only two times they were both decent and relatively healthy, they made the playoffs, the second time sweeping a Trail Blazers team in what was thought to be a coin flip series going in.

I realize James missed a third of his first season as a Laker, but they literally went from out of the playoffs to championship with Davis and a team that was otherwise not championship caliber and he was the best player in "the bubble".

Aldridge has no credible case as a better player. He was more durable though and arguably a more natural offensive hub as more of a true post player.

[bdictjames]

I'm thinking this team is too hungry. At the worst I see us finishing 2-3 these last 5, and still getting to the play-in.

I don't see the Lakers beating Phoenix the next game. And Phoenix will definitely want to turn on the afterburners, they don't want to see Lakeshow in the first round.

Can't believe our Spurs team is in the play-in, ahead of the Lakers lol.

[8sy21vd]

We could finish 10th in the West, with the #9 pick, beat N.O., but lose the second game, and we wouldn’t even lose our draft spot.

In the play in, your draft spot only changes if you make the play offs from 9/10, or fall out of them from 7/8.

Thx. That's what i though. The Spurs could forfeit the rest of their games and still comfortably end up in the 10 spot. The Lakers look like the worst team in the league right now even with Lebron/Davis in lineup. How pitiful and they keep showing them on national tv. A slow moving car wreck.

[Robz4000]

Spurs prolly gonna finish 1-4, maybe 0-5, but the only game I see the Lakers winning is at home against OKC tbh. That being said, can't discount the overwhelming officiating advantage they'll have in every game.

[RC_Drunkford]

Results without context. They were a mostly bad and chronically injured team. The only two times they were both decent and relatively healthy, they made the playoffs, the second time sweeping a Trail Blazers team in what was thought to be a coin flip series going in.

I realize James missed a third of his first season as a Laker, but they literally went from out of the playoffs to championship with Davis and a team that was otherwise not championship caliber and he was the best player in "the bubble".

Aldridge has no credible case as a better player. He was more durable though and arguably a more natural offensive hub as more of a true post player.

I‘m not talking about the Lakers, I am talking about what he did as a First option on the Pelicans where he played with Jrue Holiday and did literally nothing. And don’t make excuses about injuries when AD is the one who‘s always injured.

Oh but he took the Lakers to the championship as a 2nd option in the BUBBLE. Put a big * behind that since you want to talk about context Now he can‘t even take them to the play in. GTFOH

[spurraider21]

Magic number is 2

lakers next game is & suns too

[exstatic]

Magic number is 2

lakers next game is & suns too

Suns are completely locked in at #1, and are apparently resting almost everyone because they just lost to the ing THUNDER.

[Dex]

Suns are completely locked in at #1, and are apparently resting almost everyone because they just lost to the ing THUNDER.

They might get up for a chance to knock the Lakers out, though.

Sucks that Curry is out for GSW, otherwise that would also have been a 99% loss for the Lakers.

[Mr. Body]

I‘m not talking about the Lakers, I am talking about what he did as a First option on the Pelicans where he played with Jrue Holiday and did literally nothing. And don’t make excuses about injuries when AD is the one who‘s always injured.

Oh but he took the Lakers to the championship as a 2nd option in the BUBBLE. Put a big * behind that since you want to talk about context Now he can‘t even take them to the play in. GTFOH

Yeah, Davis is one of the most overrated players in recent NBA history. He has a lot of talent, but is incredibly soft and listless much of the time. He doesn't even seem to have developed much. His great success game under LeBron during a bubble when everyone was checked out. He also won an NCAA le but only because there was a lockout and that Kentucky team double dipped in their one-and-dones. His success as a leader of a team was very underwhelming. David Robinson dragged worse teams constantly into the playoffs. There are a lot of reasons why the Lakers sucked this year -- Westbrook, an awful supporting cast -- but to me Anthony Davis was the key horror. Other than his fragility, he was incapable of driving and leading the team to wins. He was second or third banana when he should have been shouldering the load for all the geezers.

[Darius Bieber]

I mean, I understand why they are going for it. They just weren't able to out-tank Portland/OKC/Houston/Detroit/Orlando and even now Indiana. Might as well go for it and create pressure situations for the young guys to learn from.

Although I definitely would have rather been able to out-tank these other teams, it is what it is up to this point.

Also, it doesn't really help that the two picks we gained from trades this trade deadline have gotten way worse since February since both Boston and Toronto have been winning. So, all-in-all, our entire draft stock portfolio is pretty much dead in the water.

[JPB]

Spurs prolly gonna finish 1-4, maybe 0-5, but the only game I see the Lakers winning is at home against OKC tbh. That being said, can't discount the overwhelming officiating advantage they'll have in every game.

They've won 6 of their last 7 (their only loss, a one point defeat Vs. Memphis). I don't see them finishing the season 0-4 now, specially that they might play one or two games vs. teams who won't play for anything anymore. We'll see.

[Dex]

I mean, I understand why they are going for it. They just weren't able to out-tank Portland/OKC/Houston/Detroit/Orlando and even now Indiana. Might as well go for it and create pressure situations for the young guys to learn from.

Although I definitely would have rather been able to out-tank these other teams, it is what it is up to this point.

Also, it doesn't really help that the two picks we gained from trades this trade deadline have gotten way worse since February since both Boston and Toronto have been winning. So, all-in-all, our entire draft stock portfolio is pretty much dead in the water.

At least Toronto winning means the pick conveys this year. Them being middle of the pack is ideal. I really didn't want to wait to see what Toronto does next year...if they suck, then we basically get stuck with two ty second rounders.

As it stands now we will probably still got a top 20 pick out of it, which is better than the Spurs were drafting through all of the Duncan era.

[Ariel]

Here's the remaining schedule for every team which could affect the 1st, 2nd and 3rd first rounders respectively. Projected wins in green:

It's an optimistic scenario if you're looking for the best picks possible, but not unrealistic. If it were to happen and the Spurs don't succeed in advancing to the playoffs through the play in, then they would be in a tie for the 8th pick (randomly decided with the Lakers), the Toronto pick would fall in the 20th place, and the Boston pick would be at 23, though this could vary significantly, since Boston has only 3 games remaining that are tough, and dropping one or two would be huge for us.

[emanueldavidginobili]

Well L tomorrow Dejounte is out again, and i'll be at the game tomorrow smfh.

[ZeusWillJudge]

Some of you... a lot of you apparently... don't understand how the lottery and draft order work. The lottery is ONLY for a chance at those first 4 picks. After that, everyone picks in order of record, worst to best. Look carefully at the lottery odds charts. For the 9th lottery seed, it's either one of the first four draft picks, or the 9-13 seed. Nothing in between.

Imagine that the 11, 12, 13, and 14 lottery seeds (best four records still in the lottery) all get miracle ping pong balls and take all four of the first picks. From there on, everyone else just gets shoved down 4 places in the draft order. That's why the #1 lottery seed (team with worst record) can't get any worse than the 5th pick in the lottery - they can only be shoved down as many as 4 places to lottery winners. So the team with the 9th worst record has a zero percent chance of getting the #8 draft pick. That's ZERO percent.

And no, they didn't get out-tanked. The Spurs won three games here at the end of the season (OKC, GSW, NOP, and HOU) that were nail-biters. They could have held their heads high and still not win those games in the last seconds. Those 4 wins likely dropped the Spurs chance of a 1-4 pick by at least a third, AND lowered their non-lottery draft pick by two spots. Maybe more, depending on how the last few games come out. Plus they would have had no chance of dropping completely out of the lottery.

Be honest: If you were a finalist in a drawing for a million bucks, would you care if your chace of winning went down from 32% to 20%, and had a chance of dropping even more? Or would you say that "there's really not that much of a difference between the two"?

[BatManu20]

Spurs have a better chance of moving down to 10 or 11 than we do moving into the top-4 of the lottery if we stay at 9.

[Ariel]

Besides the Spurs own pick, two games are key as they could move the other picks a couple spots up or down: Philadelphia vs Toronto and Boston vs Milwaukee, both on Thursday. Reminder to keep an eye on those.

[Chinook]

Some of you... a lot of you apparently... don't understand how the lottery and draft order work. The lottery is ONLY for a chance at those first 4 picks. After that, everyone picks in order of record, worst to best. Look carefully at the lottery odds charts. For the 9th lottery seed, it's either one of the first four draft picks, or the 9-13 seed. Nothing in between.

Imagine that the 11, 12, 13, and 14 lottery seeds (best four records still in the lottery) all get miracle ping pong balls and take all four of the first picks. From there on, everyone else just gets shoved down 4 places in the draft order. That's why the #1 lottery seed (team with worst record) can't get any worse than the 5th pick in the lottery - they can only be shoved down as many as 4 places to lottery winners. So the team with the 9th worst record has a zero percent chance of getting the #8 draft pick. That's ZERO percent.

And no, they didn't get out-tanked. The Spurs won three games here at the end of the season (OKC, GSW, NOP, and HOU) that were nail-biters. They could have held their heads high and still not win those games in the last seconds. Those 4 wins likely dropped the Spurs chance of a 1-4 pick by at least a third, AND lowered their non-lottery draft pick by two spots. Maybe more, depending on how the last few games come out. Plus they would have had no chance of dropping completely out of the lottery.

Be honest: If you were a finalist in a drawing for a million bucks, would you care if your chace of winning went down from 32% to 20%, and had a chance of dropping even more? Or would you say that "there's really not that much of a difference between the two"?

This is a misrepresentation. You can't ask the players to purposefully throw a game they're playing. That's when it goes from tanking to a potential crime. The Spurs have done a lot to make sure they're playing almost all young players. Them winning despite that is just getting out-tanked. That's what the term means, not that they were trying to score own-goals for OKC but they kept stealing the ball to score own-goals themselves.

I don't know if anyone misunderstood the way the lotto works. It's possible. But it's also possible that you are misinterpreting what variance people were discussing. The Spurs have the ninth spot now, but they can still get the eighth spot or the tenth or whatever, just like they can still get the 15 spot. Only a small number of slots are actually impossible (5, 6 and 7). It's becoming less likely, but it's still possible that we won't know where the Spurs end up being slotted until one or more coinflips, meaning come Sunday, it's possible that all of 1-4 and 8-15 are still options. Which prospects are available where is also still very much up in the air, so a guy slated to go at 6 could still easily be in the cards even if the Spurs get into the play-in.

Anyway, your example is awful. A top pick isn't a million bucks, let alone a generic top-four pick. Like if someone told you to quit your $50k (with promotion potential) a year job for an increased chance to win one of four prizes that varied from $400k to $100k, would you do it? Maybe, especially because in the real world, you can get another job. But overvaluing the likely upside and pretending as if there's no downside is basically ting all over the the table and still wanting to have a meeting at the table. It's fine that you don't care about the potential benefits of the Spurs continuing to try to play their young players in as many games as they can over literally risking litigation by losing games at the last minute to get better odds. But some of us do see that, and it's pretty easy to understand when you present the point fairly. It would be great if they could have both, but I'd totally take the Spurs playing more compe ive games with guys like Murray, Johnson and Walker than a chance to win a raffle to get the chance to pick a player who has a chance of developing into a better player the Spurs are already guaranteed to have a chance to pick. That's never been a conflict in my mind.

[ZeusWillJudge]

This is a misrepresentation. You can't ask the players to purposefully throw a game they're playing. That's when it goes from tanking to a potential crime. The Spurs have done a lot to make sure they're playing almost all young players. Them winning despite that is just getting out-tanked. That's what the term means, not that they were trying to score own-goals for OKC but they kept stealing the ball to score own-goals themselves.

I don't know if anyone misunderstood the way the lotto works. It's possible. But it's also possible that you are misinterpreting what variance people were discussing. The Spurs have the ninth spot now, but they can still get the eighth spot or the tenth or whatever, just like they can still get the 15 spot. Only a small number of slots are actually impossible (5, 6 and 7). It's becoming less likely, but it's still possible that we won't know where the Spurs end up being slotted until one or more coinflips, meaning come Sunday, it's possible that all of 1-4 and 8-15 are still options. Which prospects are available where is also still very much up in the air, so a guy slated to go at 6 could still easily be in the cards even if the Spurs get into the play-in.

Anyway, your example is awful. A top pick isn't a million bucks, let alone a generic top-four pick. Like if someone told you to quit your $50k (with promotion potential) a year job for an increased chance to win one of four prizes that varied from $400k to $100k, would you do it? Maybe, especially because in the real world, you can get another job. But overvaluing the likely upside and pretending as if there's no downside is basically ting all over the the table and still wanting to have a meeting at the table. It's fine that you don't care about the potential benefits of the Spurs continuing to try to play their young players in as many games as they can over literally risking litigation by losing games at the last minute to get better odds. But some of us do see that, and it's pretty easy to understand when you present the point fairly. It would be great if they could have both, but I'd totally take the Spurs playing more compe ive games with guys like Murray, Johnson and Walker than a chance to win a raffle to get the chance to pick a player who has a chance of developing into a better player the Spurs are already guaranteed to have a chance to pick. That's never been a conflict in my mind.

LOL. How did I know that the most ignorant person still on this forum would reply? The simple (just for you) fact is that when you decrease your percentage chance of winning something by 33% or more, it's a BIG difference.

And moving up to a Top 4 pick isn't worth a million dollars? Do you really think that? Do you have any idea how much second round picks go for, cash? (Of course you don't.) Last year, the Sixers bought a mid-second round pick for $2 Million. Probably 6 or 7 years ago I remember the Wizards selling a second for... almost $2M. And you think that a move up from mid-first to Top 4 isn't worth $1 Million?

So how about this... would you give a second round pick in addition to #10, to move up to the #4 pick? Any GM in the league would, and every other person here would. Well that's $2 Million worth.

Criminal? Did you really say criminal? Maybe if it's part of a gambling points-shaving scheme. But you think giving some young players run in the last minute of a game is criminal? I feel like Andy Griffith just gave me a stern talkin'-to. I'll just check myself into the jail, so you can run on along and see if Aint Bea will make you one of them cherry pies. Say "Hey" to Goober for me.

[objective]

Not only is ruining their lottery odds with the anti-tank stupid for team building reasons, it's stupid business wise.

Nobody is buying tickets or going to games... , that's the perfect time to tank, no one is paying attention.

But a top pick and a move up would at least be something to get fans excited for, or give the reps something to sell on their ticket packages.

Nobody is going to buy in when all there is to look forward to is some middling pick 10-15 who won't do anything and getting to watch the incremental improvement in another season aiming for the play in game.

4 years of wasted time after the Kawhi trade. And the best piece on the team by far is Murray who was on the team before the trade!

Sad.

[R. DeMurre]

I think people are really over-valuing the experience of the play-in game. If it happens, fine, but I imagine its long term effect on the development of Keldon, Primo, and Vassell is close to zero. I can't see anyone looking back in 2024 and honestly thinking, "Keldon's progress really took a hit when he didn't get to play in that 2022 play-in game." KJ isn't some brittle fragile flower whose entire career trajectory is going to be impacted by such a nonconsequential thing.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

I think people are really over-valuing the experience of the play-in game. If it happens, fine, but I imagine its long term effect on the development of Keldon, Primo, and Vassell is close to zero. I can't see anyone looking back in 2024 and honestly thinking, "Keldon's progress really took a hit when he didn't get to play in that 2022 play-in game." KJ isn't some brittle fragile flower whose entire career trajectory is going to be impacted by such a nonconsequential thing.

It's not that one or two games though - it's the whole process of going for it, improving after the trade deadline, playing a lot of close games, hitting game winners, missing game winners - all of that. As opposed to being shut down for the season after game 60.

Also, it's not like the Spurs have traded for a bunch of veterans in order to chase the play-in - they have done the opposite - they have one guy who's 28 in the rotation and everyone else is younger. Even Primo, who's the youngest player in the league and is super raw, is close to hitting 1000 minutes for the season, which is more than Murray, Keldon and White have played in their first seasons combined.

[BacktoBasics]

No one wants to sign or go to a perennial tanker. You’re at least appealing if you’re on the cusp of being relevant.

I wouldn’t have minded a tank this year but it’s not a bad look going into the off-season if this team makes the play in. We’re not a bottom feeding team. We’re 1 good player away from being a legitimate playoff threat.

[JPB]

LOL. How did I know that the most ignorant person still on this forum would reply? The simple (just for you) fact is that when you decrease your percentage chance of winning something by 33% or more, it's a BIG difference.

And moving up to a Top 4 pick isn't worth a million dollars? Do you really think that? Do you have any idea how much second round picks go for, cash? (Of course you don't.) Last year, the Sixers bought a mid-second round pick for $2 Million. Probably 6 or 7 years ago I remember the Wizards selling a second for... almost $2M. And you think that a move up from mid-first to Top 4 isn't worth $1 Million?

So how about this... would you give a second round pick in addition to #10, to move up to the #4 pick? Any GM in the league would, and every other person here would. Well that's $2 Million worth.

Criminal? Did you really say criminal? Maybe if it's part of a gambling points-shaving scheme. But you think giving some young players run in the last minute of a game is criminal? I feel like Andy Griffith just gave me a stern talkin'-to. I'll just check myself into the jail, so you can run on along and see if Aint Bea will make you one of them cherry pies. Say "Hey" to Goober for me.

Your comparison doesn't make sense... You're comparing winning 1 million bucks, which is a sure reward where you know what you're betting for and eventually getting, with young human prospects who by definition may boom, be OK or bust for aleatory results... The equation isn't a simple as you want to see it.

Proof is lots of top 4 picks have been busts and lots of non lottery picks have been top players. So this isn't as mathematical as you try to present it and your numbers don't really correspond to anything.

You actually would have to determine players success history for every pick to determine what chances you're losing at getting a gem by going down 1, 2, 3... picks in the draft.

And of course, with that basic level of analysis, he had to start his take by calling another poster stupid...

[Dex]

It's not that one or two games though - it's the whole process of going for it, improving after the trade deadline, playing a lot of close games, hitting game winners, missing game winners - all of that. As opposed to being shut down for the season after game 60.

Also, it's not like the Spurs have traded for a bunch of veterans in order to chase the play-in - they have done the opposite - they have one guy who's 28 in the rotation and everyone else is younger. Even Primo, who's the youngest player in the league and is super raw, is close to hitting 1000 minutes for the season, which is more than Murray, Keldon and White have played in their first seasons combined.

I think this is an excellent point.

SpursTalk: WE SHOULD DUMP FORBES AND PLAY PRIMO MORE!

Pop: dumps Forbes, plays Primo more

SpursTalk: WHAT THE , WHY ARE WE PLAYING BETTER AND WINNING GAMES!?

I'm sorry, but asking these guys to play well but also intentionally throw games is a loser mentality and I don't support it. You know the best way for players to develop? It's trying to play well eough to win games.

We either suck bad enough to tank, or we play well enough to win. You can't ask these players to go out there and act like the Washington Generals.