View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
therese_defarge
Joined: 29 Nov 2004 Posts: 104 Location: Paris
Back to top |
Posted: 03/22/05 6:13 pm ::: Deliberate tanking |
Reply |
|
I'm curious as to whether any of you think some teams deliberately tank their season to improve their chances in the lottery.
I am particularly looking at:-
Detroit whose 2002 record of 9 wins and 23 losses is beyond belief for a talented (Swin Cash) team and helped them to get Ruth Riley (2003 FPOY) and Cheryl Ford (2003 ROY).
Seattle whose 2001 record playing with Lo-Jack was 10 wins and 22 losses and who lost 12 of their last 14 games. Did they even at that stage have their eye on Sue Bird?
Houston in 2004, who tanked after the Olympics.
Maybe I am only sour because the Lynx always seem to over-achieve and then end up with a bad spot in the draft (I think we're 11 this year). Then again, maybe it is the sensible way to play the system. Maybe, as soon as Katie was injured last year, Minny should have said "we can't win without her so let's make sure we lose our remaining games".
What do you think?
_________________ Tell the wind and fire when to stop but don’t tell Therese
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18371 Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
Posted: 03/22/05 6:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Quote: |
Detroit whose 2002 record of 9 wins and 23 losses is beyond belief for a talented (Swin Cash) team |
Detroit did not have a true point guard, had a bunch of 2/3 players who thought they were the focal point of the offense (Edwina Brown, Dominique Canty), lost their best Euros, had a sourpuss, overrated post player (Wendy Palmer), no legitimate perimeter scoring threat, poor coaching, etc.
The team improved when Laimbeer took the reigns and pulled the Powell-Palmer trade. Laimbeer went something like 9-13 after taking over for a team that started 0-10.
Detroit didn't tank in 2002. The Shock were just bad.
|
|
womens_hoops
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 2831
Back to top |
Posted: 03/22/05 6:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
and look to the future: will anyone tank to get Candace Parker in a few years? Or Fowles, Wiggins, Humphrey?
|
|
BBallFanCT729
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 2666 Location: UConn Territory
Back to top |
Posted: 03/22/05 6:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
womens_hoops wrote: |
and look to the future: will anyone tank to get Candace Parker in a few years? Or Fowles, Wiggins, Humphrey? |
Depends. I have to see Candace actually play a college game in order to consider that.
I'm not sure I would tank for any of the freshmen, unless they are playing beyond belief in college. I guess it depends on the needs of teams.
|
|
Keegan
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 Posts: 6861 Location: The Cathedral of Snark
Back to top |
Posted: 03/22/05 6:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
BBallFanCT729 wrote: |
womens_hoops wrote: |
and look to the future: will anyone tank to get Candace Parker in a few years? Or Fowles, Wiggins, Humphrey? |
Depends. I have to see Candace actually play a college game in order to consider that.
I'm not sure I would tank for any of the freshmen, unless they are playing beyond belief in college. I guess it depends on the needs of teams. |
That first round would be pretty deep. Who would need to tank to get a good player? |
|
Alepp03
Joined: 25 Nov 2004 Posts: 1385
Back to top |
Posted: 03/22/05 6:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
In 2008, there will be no need to tank.
Candace Parker (theoretically)
Candace Wiggins
Tasha Humphrey
Sylvia Fowles
Charde Houston
Chante Black
Alexis Hornbuckle
Matee Ajavon
Jolene Anderson
I'm thinking tanking would be a bad idea, cus sheesh, if ya can't get Candace P, then take Candace W, if ya can't get a Candace, go for a Chante or Charde... What a draft that will be...
_________________ In a world full of people only some want to fly, isn't that crazy?
|
|
p_d_swanson
Joined: 01 Dec 2004 Posts: 9713
Back to top |
Posted: 03/22/05 6:42 pm ::: Re: Deliberate tanking |
Reply |
|
therese_defarge wrote: |
I'm curious as to whether any of you think some teams deliberately tank their season to improve their chances in the lottery. [...] What do you think? |
I think you omitted the most obvious one of all: Phoenix, 2003.
|
|
BBallFanCT729
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 2666 Location: UConn Territory
Back to top |
Posted: 03/22/05 6:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Alepp03 wrote: |
In 2008, there will be no need to tank.
Candace Parker (theoretically)
Candace Wiggins
Tasha Humphrey
Sylvia Fowles
Charde Houston
Chante Black
Alexis Hornbuckle
Matee Ajavon
Jolene Anderson |
Charel Allen
Essence Carson
Erlana Larkins
Wanisha Smith
Nikki Anosike
Sa'de Wiley-Gatewood
Laura Harper
Crystal Kelly
Crystal Langhorne
Some Others:
Lindsay Wisdom-Hylton
Khadijah Whittington
LaToya Pringle
Lindsey Pluimer
Sharnee Zoll
Mercedes Walker
Camille Lenoir
Sarah Elliott
Sybil Dosty
Damn...you could get top-notch players in the first two rounds.
|
|
therese_defarge
Joined: 29 Nov 2004 Posts: 104 Location: Paris
Back to top |
Posted: 03/22/05 6:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Thankyou to Cam for his persuasive defence of Detroit. Perhaps they were merely lucky getting the dispersal draft as well as the ordinary draft.
That still leaves 2001 Seattle (maybe 2000 as well), 2004 Houston and how could I have forgotten 2003 Phoenix (nice pickup there Brigade).
Guilty as charged?
_________________ Tell the wind and fire when to stop but don’t tell Therese
|
|
Keegan
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 Posts: 6861 Location: The Cathedral of Snark
Back to top |
Posted: 03/22/05 7:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
If 2001 Seattle tanked, they weren't the only one tanking. They finished equal with Washington and Detroit for worst record in the league. Skinny Lauren Jackson with a bunch of nonentities? (and Kamila was having her bad year). They were crap.
As for 2003 Phoenix, well that was just poor decision making but that's been discussed enough (and repressed!) |
|
Luuuc #NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 21951
Back to top |
Posted: 03/23/05 5:31 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I'd agree with the points made above.
If you want to tank a season, you certainly don't do it from day 1. You maybe do it right at the end, so that rules out Detroit IMO.
Seattle were just flat-out bad. No way could you accuse them of underachieving.
Ditto Phoenix in 2003. Look at the roster. If anything they overachieved! They played the Mystics at the end of the season (another struggling team) and beat them, which would have cost them lottery balls in the Diana draft, so I don't buy it for that year either.
That just leaves Houston in late 2004. In their case, the players might have been less than focussed, but I still won't believe that any of them weren't trying to win once they stepped onto the floor.
The lottery system just doesn't make it worthwhile to lose on purpose. Simple as that. Look at the history of lottery "winners" -vs- last-placed teams. It's just not worth it
_________________ Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18371 Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
Posted: 03/23/05 5:36 am ::: |
Reply |
|
therese_defarge wrote: |
Thankyou to Cam for his persuasive defence of Detroit. Perhaps they were merely lucky getting the dispersal draft as well as the ordinary draft.
|
The dispersal draft is based on won-loss record. Detroit had the worst record; as such, they had the first pick.
However, in the college/ordinary draft, Detroit had the most chances for the top pick, but ended up 3rd (and 5th, which they got from a trade).
|
|
|
|