Reply With Quote
Then we all agree management tanked by not fielding the best team that they could. Thats what I call tank, when you don't try to the best of your ability to win.
It's not. That's exactly what I said.
Then we all agree management tanked by not fielding the best team that they could. Thats what I call tank, when you don't try to the best of your ability to win.
And . . . full circle.
I think we get it now.
You think the Spurs took a big risk/gamble by putting 5 mediocre players out on the court.
Whew. I was worried this thread was going to die out.
good thing you helped keep it at the top
Is tanking against the rule? Do you think the CAVS is doing it right now? Do they have a superstar in sight?
Just taking a gamble.
good bump.
Tank means intentionally losing games. They didn't intentionally lose a single game that year. They were barely in the lottery at all and were if not for a crazy statistical oddball they would have landed a player what would have done very little in the long run.
I remember that year Monty Williams was probably our second best player and unknowns like Jamie Fieck made the rotation because there were games we couldn't suit more than 8 players due to injuries.
The Spurs didn't have to try to lose games because injuries and a lack of talent took care of that for them.
true or false: David was cleared to play at/near the end of the season.
Even if the worst they could do was 10th seed, if they were out of the Playoffs why would they bring Robinson back and risk further injury? That's not tanking, that's smart personnel management.
+1
and if you dont like it than
it's both, imo.
Was Robinson cleared to play? When was that?
I don't think so. While the chance of landing a high pick certainly was a fortunate byproduct of losing, I don't think the possibility of getting Duncan (or KVH or Ron Mercer) even entered into the decision to hold Robinson out. He's a HOF-level franchise player.
It would have been tanking if Robinson had been playing all season, was perfectly healthy, and we just decided to bench him the last ten games because we were out of the Playoff hunt. I'd have even supported that, but I would have called it tanking.
With no shot at the playoffs, there was no need to play Dave so it makes sense to have sit him to avoid injury.
But the thought of getting Duncan crossed my mind at the time, so I'm pretty sure it crossed theirs as well.
If for some stupid reason they ever were to come and admit they sat Dave in order to improve the lottery odds, I'd still be cool with it.
It can't be both. Not playing a player with legitimate injury concerns completely negates the thought that you're intentionally trying to lose. You're either trying to lose or you have legitimate reasons to keep your player sidelined and with David it was obviously legitimate. He was also cleared to play mid season when he got hurt and he wasn't exactly young at that point in his career.
What the Spurs did is not tanking.
Whether it crossed their mind or not, do you think it had anything to do with the decision? Say Tim Duncan was not in that draft and the best player was likely to be Keith Van Horn. Do you think they would have still help Robinson out?
Question 1- Yes
Question 2- No
Robinson could have played at the end of that season. I remember that year and I remember Robinson was held out at least 2 or 3 weeks before the end of the season. Robinson could have played but the spurs saw no point in it.
Doubt if anyone will find any info on when but towards the last month of the season.
so Dave was cleared to play, but didn't.
What do you call it when they aren't trying very hard to win?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
